Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Arms of Elizabeth II

At present there is an article 'Coats of arms of Elizabeth II' which lists the arms used, however there are also arms listed on the this page 'Elizabeth II'. The use of the Queen's arms in the United Kingdom on the Elizabeth II page is reasonable since thats the primary territory. The use of the arms of Canada and not the other commonwealth countries is strange and at present adds no encyclopedic value to the article. I propose one of the following be be adopted in regards to the arms of Elizabeth II.

I. Remove the Canadian arms and maintain the presence of the arms of the United Kingdom.

or

II. Include every coat of arms used by Elizabeth II for the Commonwealth.

Thoughts? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thought: You've skewed the choice in your favour. In a recent edit summary, you stated the article should not hold just "a select few". Yet, you've ex post facto shifted the goalposts to give the UK arms immunity from that "rule"; the article can have "a select few", so long as the few are the ones you selected.

The British and Canadian arms are sourced as being those of Elizabeth II. The arms of the other Commonwealth realms are, so far, not. So, given that 95% of the content of Coats of arms of Elizabeth II lacks any source stating the arms are those of Elizabeth II, the page doesn't really factor into this; if no sources are found, the page could essentially be gutted. If, however, Coats of arms of Elizabeth II was better sourced—and thus became a "stable" (for lack of a better term) article—then the correct, NPOV course of action here would be to move to that page all the arms except those Elizabeth held before her accession. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting thought! Though the NPOV would be to only include the UK arms, since the thrown and residence is in.. The UK. However since I don't have the time to specifically research every coat of arms, I'll focus on one I know quite well, the Australian coat of arms.

how about we include the Australian coat of arms, since it has the exact same legal standing of Canadian coat of arms? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II has thrones and residences all over the world. Ergo, the existence of a throne and residences in the UK does not make the UK arms "more important" than the others. The NPOV thing to do would be to not single out the UK arms.

We'd need a source stating the Australian arms are Elizabeth's arms in Australia before even considering adding them here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Australian arms represent the sovereign, not speficically Elizabeth II. However the arms were updated after her succession with regards to the crown's used. [1] is the fact sheet. Are you able to point out a source that the Canadian version is specifically for Elizabeth II? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that it says the Australian arms were granted by the sovereign but not that they are the sovereign's arms.

The source for the Canadian arms is used in this article. There's also a number at the top of Arms of Canada.

• [2] "The Royal Crown at the top indicates that these are the Arms of the Sovereign in right of Canada..."
• [3] "Registration of the Arms and Supporters of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada"
• [4] "[T]he arms of Canada (or, more properly, the Arms of His/Her Majesty in Right of Canada)..."
• [5] "The Arms of Canada is Her Majesty's Arms in Right of Canada..."
• [6] (p.71) "[T]he coat of arms—is actually the Queen's Arms in Right of Canada. They are her own arms, representing her as the human face of the state."

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Other then calling it the 'royal arms' it's not really different in any way. See [7]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious 1) they're said to be the monarch's arms and 2) there is, so far, no source saying the same about the Australian arms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I think it's fair to simply use all coat of arms we have sources explicitly stating that they are Elizabeth's, otherwise they should not be included. That's excluding any reference to the "Sovereign" and anything else that doesn't mention her explicitly. That way there's not debate as it's clear cut. SamWilson989 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion has swayed. Taking that into account SamWilson989, I think the article 'Coats of arms of Elizabeth II' should be changed to'Coats of arms of the Sovereign of the Commonwealth' or something along those lines. Thoughts gents? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 14:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, that article should be renamed, it's unsourced and inaccurate. We should move this conversation to the talk page on that article I think. SamWilson989 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's too strict, in my opinion. Is there a source saying such about the British (and Scottish) arms? When arms are said to be the monarch's, they're the arms of the reigning monarch, and the reigning monarch is presently Elizabeth II. If there were sources saying the New Zealand or Australian or Jamaican or whatever arms are those of the monarchs of those countries, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to take that as confirmation they are right now Elizabeth II's arms.

But, regardless, there is a source right above stating the Canadian arms are "her own arms". It would ludicrous to argue that "her" in that quote doesn't refer to Elizabeth II. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Then the Canadian arms should be included, problem solved. SamWilson989 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Religion – Anglicanism vs Church of England and Church of Scotland

Hi all. My last edit (changing the Inbox religion from Anglicanism to Church of England and Church of Scotland) was reverted by User:Calvin999, who encouraged me to bring the matter up in the Talk page because this is a featured article. So here goes:

• Article has been featured since February 2012. At that time EII's religion was listed as CofE and CofS.
• In May last year, User:Krebello edited the Religion to Anglican. No edit summary provided, so I don't know the rationale. Searching the Talk archive for 'Anglican' yields no discussion of the change.
• According to the CofS [8], the Queen worships with them. This page is referenced in the text. This Royal Family website also mentions that she is a member of the CofS [9].
• The Queen is Supreme Governor of the CofE as per the first paragraph of the article. I could probably find a source for this if needed.
• The CofE is Anglican, the CofS is not (it's presbyterian – although recognised in law as the official church). Note that the EEII could choose to worship with the (Anglican) Scottish Episcopal Church when in Scotland, but does not.
• I therefore think that her religion ought to either be listed as CofE and CofS (or, if preferred, Anglican and Presbyterian) – but not just Anglican.

Any questions? :p Charlie A. (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The first line of Anglicanism says "Anglicanism is a tradition within Christianity comprising the Church of England and churches which are historically tied to it or have similar beliefs, worship practices and church structures." So doesn't that mean that the Church of Scotland is historically tied to the Church of England, and therefore saying Anglicanism is acceptable?  — ₳aron 12:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much of a historical link between the CofE and CofS other than the monarch themselves, so that seems a little tenuous. And Anglicanism alone would also strongly imply to a hypothetical reader that the Queen worships at the Scottish Episcopal Church when in Scotland, which is not correct.

However, I'm glad you flagged this up as my own edit isn't ideal. I think that EII worships in Anglican churches in all countries except Scotland, so perhaps some formulation along the lines of 'Anglicanism, except in Scotland' would be more accurate – or perhaps Anglicanism with a footnote explaining this. Charlie A. (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, because she is Anglican. So maybe a side note saying except when residing in Scotland.  — ₳aron 16:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"So doesn't that mean that the Church of Scotland is historically tied to the Church of England, and therefore saying Anglicanism is acceptable?" That's not the case. To begin with, the historical connection between the two churches isn't all that strong. Neither is an offshoot or successor of the other: they both separated quite independently from the Catholic Church, back when Scotland and England were completely independent (and mutually hostile) countries with separate monarchies. However, from the Union of the Crowns of the two countries (or even slightly before) there were attempts to bring the two churches in line with each other in terms of doctrine, liturgy, and ecclesiastical structure, either on a (for want of a better word) episcopalian model (bishops, the Book of Common Prayer, a more Catholic-flavoured liturgy ...) or a competing (again, roughly speaking) Calvinist one (austere liturgy, explicitly Calvinist doctrine, rule by elders with no bishops ...). But after lots of to-and-fro these attempts failed, leaving the CofE on the episcopalian model and the CoS on the Calvinist one.

So the modern CoS isn't Anglican either by descent (it's always been independent of Canterbury) or by doctrine and practise; it's universally thought of as Presbyterian and not Anglican. The anomaly is the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is now an acknowledged member of the Anglican Communion despite being a descendant of the CoS, not the CofE: it's basically the (eventually) losing side in the Scottish Episcopalian/Calvinist struggle. (English Presbyterianism is roughly the flip-side of this coin.) (Still the 'Anglican' label isn't all that popular with the Scottish Episcopal Church, or the Church of Ireland: they don't like the suggestion that they're offshoots or branch offices of the CofE.) RW Dutton (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Church of England and Church of Scotland" version was discussed pretty thoroughly back in 2009, and has been in place largely unchanged since then until last May when User:Krebello made his change without a talk-page discussion, or an edit summary. If talk-page discussion is required for changes to this field then the starting point should be "Church of England and Church of Scotland": certainly Elizabeth II was a featured article for years before User:Krebello made his edit. So I am minded to once again revert the edit; then any discussion about changing it again can start from there. RW Dutton (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put it back to how it was. I found your remarks informative, interesting and persuasive. If anyone wants to discuss things further that's fine by me but CoE/CoS seems the most sensible starting point. Thincat (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

More recent discussion is at Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 29#Church of England/Church of Scotland and Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 30#Religion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Let us just write Religion: Christianity and avoid all disagreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at those now. I'll suggest Protestant Christianity knowing that it redirects to Protestantism. However, unless we are rather clear that the version at FAC was inappropriate (and I'm not at all clear on that), I think we should leave it alone. "Anglican" by itself is simply wrong. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

In the fourth paragraph of the introduction to Her Royal Majesty's page, you will find this sentence: 'She has seen major constitutional changes, such as devolution in the United Kingdom, Canadian patriation, and the decolonization of Africa.' I request that a change be made so that the sentence will read as follows: 'She has seen major constitutional changes, such as devolution in the United Kingdom, Canadian patriation, and the decolonisation of Africa.' The s/z disagreement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be upheld in Her Majesty's page. The use of a 'z' in 'decolonisation' is unacceptable for use in the page that details the life of Her Majesty the Queen. This change should be undebated within the intelligent community, as it is only logical to spell the word as requested. PeterNoone1964 (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Of course we should be using the British spelling, thank you for noticing. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The z form is also used in Britain. See Oxford spelling. DrKiernan (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Queen has been called "Lilibet" by close relatives

That's a fact. DrKiernan wants "was called Lilibet" with the motivation given that everyone who called her that is dead. Respectfully doubting that DrKiernan knows for a fact that they're all dead, cousins, in-laws etc - her husband certainly isn't - I suggested this compromise: has been called. That too got nixed with the summary "unfamiliar idiom" as if "has been called" isn't English. English is my first language and I've taught it for decades. Thus, I don't get it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not want "was called" and have never inserted it. You did not write "has been called". DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're right. I misquoted you, and myself as well, here, and I hate that when it's done to me. Was tired when I wrote it. Hope you're OK with how I'll word that now in the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think it is misleading. Her close family are her children, grandchildren and son- and daughters-in-law. None of them call her Lilibet. DrKiernan (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

How about "As a child she was known as 'Lilibet' by her close family."? We know that Lilibet was a nickname used by her parents and sister, but we don't know that it's something her husband or her cousins, in-laws, etc have ever called her. Her current close family very likely doesn't call her that anymore. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

But Serge is saying that they continued to call her that. How about the way it is in the article now: Called Lilibet by her close family, she was cherished...? It's in the early life section and does not use the present tense, which satisfies my concerns, and yet does not explicitly imply that she is no longer called that. DrKiernan (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Like --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan insists repeatedly that a person qualifies as a moment. This is a grammatical error, so I request further information regarding the reasons for his errant insistence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epigogue (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

You were replacing a parenthetical comma with the word "and", which made it appear as though Lord Mountbatten and Prince Philip's uncle were two different people instead of the same one. I have simply removed the comma, so that it reads "Prince Philip's uncle Lord Mountbatten". DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image update

File:Queen Elizabeth II June 2014.jpg

The Queen in June 2014

Isn't it about time the image of the Queen used in the infobox was updated? I know its a "Featured Picture" and should be used within the article but its nearly 8 years old and it doesn't even focus on the Queen. I have one recommendation, though its not a featured pic, its age appopriate and the best recent image available of the Queen.--Stemoc 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What does the present image focus on, if not the Queen?

I see no change in her appearance over the last seven and a bit years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• sigh* infobox images should focus on the face/features of the person, long shots or side shots are not deemed good enough for use in infoboxes (unless there are no other options, the queen has quite a few)--Stemoc 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• The people in the background are hidden in the older image, whereas this one has a distraction over her right shoulder. The other image is a featured picture, and is of higher resolution; the pose and composition are fine, and there is no obvious difference in her appearance. On balance, the older picture has more going for it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with the picture used at the moment. Everyone can recognise her from 8 years ago; she's not changed in any significant way that would warrant a change to a picture which I personally think looks worse. SamWilson989 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth in March 2015

I thought I would restart this discussion with a different one I just found, any opinions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's possible, might we not use one of the Karsh ones from the early 1950s, it makes her look fabulous. Ericl (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Karsh died in 2002; his photos won't be out of copyright in the UK until after 2072. DrKiernan (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

82.47.161.65 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Esquivalience ^t 13:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unencyclopdic speculation of the future

A statement in the end of the biografi states (prince Charles) is now is expected to continue to increase. Even if is is supporterd by proper sources, I see it against Wikipedias principles to speculate over the future (and who is it really that "expects"). Yger (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It says he is expected to take over more of the Queen's activities as she reduces her workload. It does not appear speculative to me, but a reasonable statement. TFD (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Bellamy salute - Nazi salute

No one has yet mentioned the Bellamy salute.

Worth putting the Nazi salute in context, and that it was much more widespread in the 1920s etc.

Used in the USA as part of the pledge of allegiance, and was not associated with the Nazis.

See links to Wikipedia -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.242.86 (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Queen Nazi salute film

Video

• CNN
• The Daily Telegraph
• BBC

Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the recent media controversy resulting from this (along with Buckingham Palace's rebuke of its publication) not be mentioned in the 'Public perception and image' section on this page? 90.222.54.112 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No, this is all much ado about nothing. In a few weeks, it will be forgotten. --rogerd (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Too insignificant to mention. TFD (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above, "newspaper gains possible illegal access to private archive and publishes it out of context" just isn't worth noting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's insignificant now, but maybe more will come out - the uniforms, the secret meetings, that unexpected skill in skydiving... If this blows up, don't say we didn't consider it. --Pete (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes this should absolutely be included. It's not insignificant at all. Like the press, Wikipedia is not censored. Let's not forget that.  — Calvin999 08:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that it should only be mentioned here if there is sustained coverage. That might be the case if there is a prosecution for theft or copyright infringement, but if it's a one-day wonder then I don't think it merits inclusion at the main article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM --rogerd (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with recentism when the subject matter in question was filmed 82 years ago. It's quite prolific that our Queen (albeit unknowingly what it would go on to represent) did the Hitler sign. It's in all the news and people are saying as to whether The Sun was right or not to publish it, and how they got ahold of it.  — Calvin999 16:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, then why didn't you add this to her article 5 years ago?  :) Because it was only RECENTLY publicized and within a short period of time, it will be virtually forgotten. If I am wrong, then add it to the article 3 months from now. Wikipedia is not the newspaper. It has a longer view than that. --rogerd (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, a lot of info we publish on here is recently published info. I still don't see why this wouldn't be added.  — Calvin999 17:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw the photo. Can it be proven she was doing a Nazi salute vs. just waving to the crowd? CaribDigita (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't a crowd - it was taken in a private place and went into a private archive. So far as we're aware, nobody outside the royal family knew that it had even happened until this month (and chances are those in the royal family had forgotten about it).

If you look at the video it looks like she raises a hand in a way vaguely reminiscent of what we would now call a Nazi salute. We can't guarantee purely from the footage that she wasn't waving at somebody or shielding her eyes from the sun - it's twelve seconds of silent footage - but WP:RS refer to it as a Nazi salute.

I agree with others that as yesterday's chip paper it does not come close to meriting inclusion given the coverage so far received. Kahastok talk 20:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely worth mentioning - there has been sustained media coverage of it over the past week; The Guardian, The Independent and the Daily Telegraph have all continued coverage of it. The logic that it is not worth mentioning because it happened 'so long ago' would render much of this article null and void. This attempt to censor the Queen's public image smacks of bias.155.136.80.160 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What smacks of bias is trying to use an event taken completely out of context to fuel Nazi-themed insinuations about the Queen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

My comments above were jocular, Mies. Everybody knows that she really supported Stalin. --Pete (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No one has or is alleging that the Queen is or was a Nazi sympathiser. Given her age in the video, the chances are even less likely to support it. It does, however, bring the moral judgement of her elders into question. The argument for its inclusion is that it is obviously a major media event that has caused controversy and underlines the Monarchy's interests in managing its public image and suppressing anything that might compromise it. It is perfectly within reason to present this matter-of-factly and without bias.155.136.80.36 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about major life events, not major media events (and especially not minor media events). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Link To Queen Page

I'd add this myself but it's semi-protected. Someone mind adding a hyperlink for the first mention of the word Queen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.48.64.109 (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK, common words are usually not linked. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Update to Diamond Jubilee and Beyond Section

Queen Elizabeth II becomes longest-reigning UK monarch. (198.135.125.44 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC))

Incorrect date re Longest reign

Hi there,

I made a Wikipedia account today so am extremely new to this and don't really have any idea what I'm doing so apologies if I've gone about this the wrong way.

Just wanted to highlight the following fact as incorrect: "If still reigning on 10 September 2015, she will have become the longest-reigning British head of state and the longest-reigning female monarch in history, surpassing Queen Victoria."

I think it's supposed to be the 9th September 2015 is it not? Or have I got that wrong? Some articles seem to agree but others still say the 10th? https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TEUA_enGB491GB491&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=when%20will%20queen%20elizabeth%20beat%20queen%20victoria

Just thought it'd be worth bringing up (apologies in advance if I am incorrect)

SammyR — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyR (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The length of Victoria's reign can be calculated to within the hour because people were present at her death and that of William IV and their times of death were recorded. However, George VI died unaccompanied in the middle of the night, and so the length of the Queen's reign cannot be determined so precisely because the hour of his death, and hence the hour of her accession, is not known. She should surpass the length of Victoria's reign at some point after 8:30 p.m. on the 9th and before 5:30 a.m. on the 10th. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say 10 Sept is correct. See my calculations at Talk:Borders Railway#Possibly some additional content. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct date is 9 September, 2015. There have been numerous calculations performed including not least by Buckingham Palace. In addition, it has been announced on the BBC and elsewhere that Her Majesty the Queen will be opening a section of Scottish Borders Railway on 9 September, 2015 - the day she surpasses Victoria's reign.<ref>http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-33761625</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:79D4:31E4:640C:FA5E:F84C (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the section about Jubilee and Beyond, it still lists the incorrect date of 10 September as the milestone date where Elizabeth surpasses Victoria's reign. The correct date is 9 September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:79D4:5566:F186:6A71:9BF9 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"world's longest reigning living monarch"

This is not true - check king of Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.33.221.6 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We know. If it says that at some other page, then please delete it. DrKiernan (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2015

Please change "if still reigning on the 10th September" to "if still reigning on the 9th September", as Queen Victoria's reign lasted for 63 years, 7 months and 2 days; on the 9th September, Queen Elizabeth II will have reigned for 63 years, 7 months and 3 days.

86.21.150.28 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See discussion in section above this one. DrKiernan (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"longest reigning female monarch in history"?

From what I can see, she will not surpass Eleanor of Aquitaine as the longest reigning female monarch in history until around January 31st, 2019. That ought to be corrected. If the editors would like to retain a statement as close as possible to the original, it could be changed to "longest reigning queen in history", and then it would be accurate. Deusveritasest (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

One could argue that holders of fiefdoms (like Eleanor) aren't sovereigns. Replacing the word monarch with sovereign would be an idea. But if they're not sovereigns are they monarchs? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The way to handle this is to see what the sources say about it. If the sources say longest-reigning queen in world history, then fine. If they don't mention it, then it shouldn't be included anyway. Personally, I think there's a problem with "queen", because it could be misread as including wives of kings. DrKiernan (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wives of kings don't reign. Only queens regnant do that. I suppose queens consort "serve". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I get about 15,000 ghits for "reigning queen consort". As I said, it can be misread, even if the fault is on the reader's side rather than the writer's. DrKiernan (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. I tried to determine what the precedented relationship between "monarch" and "sovereign" was on Wikipedia. While the "monarch" article does establish that a monarch is the sovereign head of a state, it also kind of fudged with that and sent mixed messages later on in the article, so I'm not really sure at this point. Deusveritasest (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Eleanor was a consort while Queen Elizabeth was a regnant so she is the longest reigning queen regnant in History. Royal1usa (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Eleanor was Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right. Psunshine87 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A Duchess is not a monarch or a Queen. Eleanor notionally held Aquitaine from the French King, see Duke of Aquitaine. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As it currently stands, I added the "longest reigning queen regnant in history" (which she is) to the article as a compromise word choice, and have sources that say the same thing that back that claim up. She can be claimed to be the "longest reigning female monarch" when she overtakes Eleanor of Aquitaine in 3 years or so.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That phrasing strikes me as redundant. Doesn't "longest reigning queen" already establish queen regnant? Deusveritasest (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That's discussed above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Update on reign length

This is a request to add to the first line of this Wikipedia article: ", and is the longest-reigning monarch in British history."< ref >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34177107< /ref >

AsaSK 2015 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Asa

Already done as per edit. Stickee (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And undone - both that source and others say that she will become longest reigning monarch at about 17:30 UK time and that's still over 12 hours away. Please read past the title of the source. A lot of the titles seem to suggest it's already happened but when you read the text it's clear it hasn't. No idea why the BBC is reporting it like it already has in it's title - makes more sense for the papers as they're a once a day affair. Dpmuk (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Why Head of State and not Monarch?

It should be Longest-reigning British Monarch not Longest-reigning Head of State. Royal1usa (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• The position of head of state in the UK (or more specifically in one of its predecessor states, England) has not always been a monarch '''tAD''' (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? England has been a monarchy for 1100 years. She is head of state as well as Monarch as UK head of state is a monarch, Royal1usa (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• See Commonwealth of England. An exception of eleven years, but an exception nonetheless. '''tAD''' (talk)

Yes but only 11 years out of it 1100 years History Royal1usa (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

She is both, obviously. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II Regina

Hello, could the article be updated to note the Queen's title is: Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina, and explain she signs her name: Elizabeth R (R the initial for Regina)

I am unable to find a direct source stating, except for wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_cypher "The present Queen's cypher is EIIR, standing for Elizabeth II Regina."

and coins stating: Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dei_Gratia_Regina

If the above is incorrect, could someone please make enter the correct titles?Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina" is not the Queen's title in any country of which she is queen. Her titles are covered at List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So these "titles" are something else then?

In 1953, Elizabeth II's first coins bore "Dei Gratia Britt Omn Regina" ("By the Grace of God, Queen of All the Britains"). From 1954 until 1964, it was shortened to read "Dei Gratia Regina" and from 1965 onwards, it was abbreviated on all coins to the current phrase of "D. G. Regina".CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is not covered in biographies of her, which it doesn't seem to be, then it's not something we should cover here. DrKiernan (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Those aren't titles. Her titles are set by law, not coins.

What you're referring to is covered at Coins of the pound sterling. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Signature Elizabeth R?

Is there an explanation why the queen signs her name "Elizabeth R (egina)"? instead of Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth II

Is the signature a traditional format?--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's just tradition - monarchs have typically signed with 'R' at the end of their name: both Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II sign documents in the same way: see a discussion here and here. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's an old form which goes back before surnames existed. It was used by people in many important positions, and still is in a few. For instance the Archbishop of Canterbury signs himself "+Justin Cantuar". In the case of British monarchs they have used the format Elizabeth Regina or Charles Rex )which is simply the Latin for Queen or King respectively) since time immemorial. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it worth a note in the article explaining the use of the "Elizabeth R" signature as a traditional preference? I do not have a source. The signature forms used seem to be a person's preference. In the links above, 2 queens used "the Quene" form: "Anne the Quene” and stepdaughter “Marye the Quene”; but Mary's half sister Elizabeth I signed as "Elizabeth R".CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Something that applies to all monarchs can be explained in a general article about monarchs, but is generally not suitable for individual biographies, which should focus on the life of the subject and not go into unnecessary detail. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, helpful article adviceCuriousMind01 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Queen of 16 of the member states

The description of Elizabeth II in the lede is at odds with any common usage. We're about the only publication that doesn't call her "Queen of the United Kingdom" or similar. Yes, she's Queen of Tuvalu (about as big as Twickenham, with one-tenth the population) as well, but honestly, we can only be so precious before we're locked up in the Tower along with the Crown Jewels! --Pete (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I would say something like Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent countries. TFD (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, "...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" is how it should be shown. That being said, listing the 4 oldest realms (with the UK first) followed by ...and the 12 other Commonwealth realms", would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disagree. "Of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" or "and 15 other independent countries" is not common usage. There's no confusion anywhere in this article about Elizabeth's roles. This topic is so tired; a consesus was reached and it's held for years. Let it go. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change, though I wouldn't hold my breath here :) GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Common usage is not "Queen of 16 member states". Common usage is "Queen of the United Kingdom", "the British Queen" or (incorrectly, but common in the US) "Queen of England". Her overwhelmingly most significant role is as Queen of the UK; her function as Queen of Tuvalu are more in the nature of ceremonial jobs such as honorary colonel of various regiments, or patron of various bodies, or Sovereign Head of of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. Basically, it's "British Queen and lots of other little jobs". IMHO --Pete (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Elizabeht II is most commonly associated with the United Kingdom & this should be reflected in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, you should argue for "Elizabeth II is most commonly associated with the United Kingdom" to be inserted into the lede (with at least one accompanying reliable source, obviously). "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" doesn't impart the information you claim to want imparted.

The lede has four uses of "United Kingdom" (five, if you count the one in the infobox drop-down menu) and two uses of "British". No reasoning has been presented to explain why that isn't enough to "reflect" Elizabeth's association with the UK, but one more "United Kingdom" would be, so much so it justifies the breach of WP:NPOV.

How many times have we rehashed the same remarks on this grotesque merry-go-round? We should just make a template with our arguments in it and post it here once in a while. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change. We'll have to wait for others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Four voices heard from so far. Perhaps we should ask for more via an RfC? --Pete (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That decision is yours to make, Skyring :) GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Or any of us. However, I think that we should discuss the issue for a while. Maybe others with this page on their watchlist will come in and a clear consensus emerge. We won't need to call an RfC then, and the only editor likely to want more process would be the one on the short end of consensus. --Pete (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the current intro is at odds with common usage. I understand the intention behind it, to make it clear that all the realms are legally equal, but the wording just seems awkward and potentially confusing. I would suggest something along the lines of "…the Queen of the United Kingdom and also of fifteen other Commonwealth realms, where she is represented by governors-general…" (although mentioning the governors-general so early in the article could be a bit technical/unnecessary). The Queen is associated more with the UK than with any other country and the UK is the only country where she does any real monarchical work, so I think a change in wording would be appropriate. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the "real monarchical work" comment being false and the suggested wording and link together being contrary to WP:NPOV, "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of the United Kingdom and also of 15 other Commonwealth realms of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England." really doesn't come across as less awkward and "potentially confusing". It also essentially duplicates info in the second paragraph: "Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're really going to go through the whole ordeal of replying to everyone who disagrees with you, I'd suggest doing something a bit more substantive than strawmanning. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You may want to use something other than blatant deflection to defend your position. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed the lead to reflect the neutrality policy.[10] TFD (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems you didn't get a certain editor's permission. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You of all people should watch the personal digs and combative behaviour. There's no consensus here (after less than 10 hours of discussion between five people) that overrides that which was reached for this featured article by way of very lengthy discussion and multiple RfCs involving dozens of editors and has subsequently stood for years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We shall see. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it has. I changed the text to reflect the policy based new consensus. I see you have reversed my edit without discussion. I will put back the neutral wording - please do not revert without discussion. TFD (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus here (after less than 10 hours of discussion between five people) that overrides that which was reached for this featured article by way of very lengthy discussion and multiple RfCs involving dozens of editors and has subsequently stood for years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to wait a while for more voices before changing on the basis of consensus. We can edit-war over it and get all stressed out, maybe make a few hasty remarks, maybe take a shotgun and discuss matters, or wait a bit. As Mies notes, this concensus has stood for a few weeks, it can wait a bit more before the new regime takes firm hold. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's stood for a few weeks if by a few weeks you mean 61. (Nine and a half years for some version of "16 independent countries".) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I take far too much pleasure in teasing you. I should find some way to fix that, maybe sit on a tack or put on some disco. Nevertheless, after careful thought and discussion, I've come to view the Queen's role in her various Commonwealth dominions as being essentially ceremonial and hardly worth equating to her work in the UK. --Pete (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a) confirming you enjoy being disruptive on talk pages and b) are motivated to change Wikipedia to suit your personal pov. Very refreshing to see you be so honest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As I understand it, there are two versions for which consensus is being claimed:

• Elizabeth II...is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.[11]
• Elizabeth II ... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.[12]

Of those two versions, the second is clumsier and is unlikely to be seen (or heard) or proposed outside Wikipedia. The first is the same as, or close to, what is normally seen and heard outside Wikipedia, and appears to be the better version for the article. My pov is of a person born, bred and residing in UK, but with family connections with former colonies (from early 19c.) and present realms in both eastern and western hemispheres, and supporting encyclopedic npov editing for Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The problem with the version supported by Miesianiacal is that it fails to mention, in the opening sentence, the words "United Kingdom". All the evidence that I have seen is that, internationally,the monarch is best known for her role in the UK, and the opening sentence of the article should reflect that. So, I generally prefer the first option proposed by Qexigator, although I do not think that the word "also" needs to be in the second sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Would just like to chime in with my opinion. I too feel that the United Kingdom should get outright mention as that is the main role associated with her. I would go so far as to suggest that even in those other countries, she would still be first associated as "the British Queen". Of course that is just my opinion and may not be true but still... It makes sense to include the United Kingdom first. Regards. :) --Re5x (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Whether one form or the other is heard outside Wikipedia is irrelevant; we are writing an encyclopaedia not indulging in a bar room discussion. To the supporters of the "UK and 15 other" form I would ask why stop there? She is commonly referred to as the English Queen. We could phrase it Queen of England, other parts of the UK and other parts of the Commonwealth; or even Queen of England and her other possessions! If Wiki is to keep to NPOV we need to accept the fact that she is Queen of 16 countries and leave it at that in the lead. Further down in the article it is clear how her position arose. I'm speaking as an Englishman, but I would be unhappy at a current encyclopaedia dismissing as "also" other nations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The rambling remarks in that comment (10:57, 26 September) may be fit for a beer fancier's bar room discussion, but may be, perhaps intentionally, too far from the question under discussion here. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Qexigator: see irony ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Snap!" Qexigator (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That is quite rightly it: "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" has always separated the UK out and above the other realms now relegated to second class status. That mirrors a pov held by certain editors, not real life. And their argument that this communicates that Elizabeth II is more personally involved in the government of the UK is a red herring: it doesn't say that at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please give sufficient reason for supposing that Elizabeth II...is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states relegates the other realms to second class status, and that Elizabeth II ... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations would make any difference, express or implied, in fact or fancy, to the actual status of any of them. It is undeniable that the monarchy is more ancient than the United Kingdom, and that other countries, formerly British colonies and dominions, became independent realms in the present monarch's reign. It would be hardly rational to propose that one monarch's status is less than another's simply because one reigned before and the other after, or that the present queen's status has been relegated because of the independence attained by the realms in her reign (and before). It might be thought that a monarch who had reigned in one kingdom with Canada and 14 (or more) other overseas territories gains in status on becoming the monarch of Canada and 14 more sovereign independent states, and that those countries at the same time have gained in status on becoming sovereign independent states. Has this question of "status" been notably debated anywhere that could be added to the information in this or some other article? Qexigator (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The subject of status is addressed in the Balfour Declaration of 1926: All the realms "are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another". How "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" separates the UK out and above the other realms now relegated to second class status is self-evident; "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" gives the UK distinct mention the other realms do not get and puts the UK first, "of 16... states" does not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV includes considerations of weight. I think it is fanciful to equate her role as the British Queen to any other position. To equate her nominal job as the head of state of a tiny island in the Pacific with the complex job as apex of a thousand year old government, religion and culture makes no sense to me. More importantly, it misleads our readers. --Pete (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think some editors here are perhaps approaching this the wrong way. The lead should summarise the article as a whole. Reading the article, it seems very clear that she is first and foremost the queen of the United Kingdom - the history of the role she holds, her royal duties take place in the United Kingdom, her rare visits to the other realms. If we want to accurately convey all this in the lead then we need to acknowledge her primarily as the queen of the United Kingdom. The 16 Commonwealth realms may be technically equal, but she's represented by a Governor-General in all but the United Kingdom. -- Hazhk (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: I'm throwing this out here as a possible point to meet midway and maybe an actual improvement to the lede, as it merges the first and third paragraphs, thereby reducing the length of the lede and removing some duplication of info. It gets out of the way at the opening what Elizabeth is for whom and for how long.

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Upon her accession, she also became monarch of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. However, from 1952 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some became republics. Today, in addition to the first four aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. [Possibly:] Together, the 16 countries of which she is queen are known as the Commonwealth realms.

That gives the UK its own mention and first and "splits" the realms. But, if the realms must be "split", the above does so according to date of Elizabeth's accession as queen of those realms, rather than some personally imagined class structure. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" is quite sufficient, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your flexibility and openness to compromise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm good with that wording, Mies. --Pete (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The merged paragraph could be confusing. On initial reading one might assume she is merely the queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We don't establish that she's queen of 12 other countries until two sentences later. I would say we keep that list in its current place. --Hazhk (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Well, how about:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other countries from various dates; together, those 16 independent states are known as the Commonwealth realms. Upon her accession, she also became Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Between then and 1992, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some became republics.

I'm not happy with lumping Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis in under "12 other states"—it seems to suffer from the same bias as "and 16 other states"—but, it does still make the separation by date, four on the same date and the remainder each on a different date. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms", is sufficient. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be making some progress. If Mies.'s latest rewrite is acceptable, let it have the accession added to the 1952 date, and the present realms named explicitly, to read thus:

Elizabeth II ... is queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. Together, those 16 countries are known as the Commonwealth realms. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. From her accession in 1952 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some became republics. Today, Elizabeth is queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the period after her accession she ceased to be monarch of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon.[a]

Qexigator (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That still draws a distinction between the UK and all the other realms for no reason evident to any reader of the article, thereby misleading them into thinking there isn't equality among the realms. The final sentence also misses the fact Elizabeth has ceased to be queen of more realms than just South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon in the period following her accession. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Too cumbersome, mentioning the former realms. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We certainly do not need to mention in the opening paragraph the countries of which she is no longer head of state. How about this:

Elizabeth II ... is queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent Commonwealth realms. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Since her accession in 1952, the number of her realms has varied; she is now the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That still draws a distinction between the UK and all the other realms for no reason evident to any reader of the article, thereby misleading them into thinking there isn't equality among the realms. It also repeats "United Kingdom". You're right that we don't need the individual names of countries of which Elizabeth is no longer queen; you'll see that my proposal at 17:58 avoids that.

People demanding "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" profess to want the article to impart that Elizabeth is personally more involved with the UK than her other realms. There are other ways to do that--better ways to do that. One has to wonder, then, why those people refuse to explore any option that doesn't use the exact words "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", even if it means turning a blind eye to bias or tolerating needless repetition. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ghmyrtle's version acceptable: best so far. The rest is history for the remainder of article and linked articles. This is an npov editing comment, devoid of the emotive imputations which still seem to be bothering Mies. so much. Qexigator (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That npov editing comment seems to possess an emotive quip at my expense. Or, do you really believe a lack of appetite for repetition, bias, and misleading is "emotive", rather than practical? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are two irreconcilable points here. One is that her legal role in the 16 realms is equal in each. The other is that, both because of history and by common usage globally (that is, the "reason evident to any reader of the article"), she is known primarily as the Queen of the UK (/Britain/England). In writing a linear prose summary, one of those must be written before the other. There is simply no way round that. So, do we place the legal position first, or the common use? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as this article is about Elizabeth II & not the Commonwealth realms, then we must go with common usage. For example - 1) Liz resides in the UK, but not in the other realms 2) Liz opens the British Parliament each year, but not so every year for the other realm Parliaments 3) the UK doesn't have or need a governor general, the other realms do. Seem clear to me, that the UK is the Commonwealth realm that Liz is the most associated with. The UK is unique among Liz's realms & thus it should be reflected in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not simply her legal role, it's an 80 year old established international agreement that the realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another". We can't have wording that even possibly leads readers to think something else, something wrong. Elizabeth also isn't--can't be--"more queen" of one country than she is of another, as one editor here opines.

Of course Elizabeth is personally more directly involved with the UK; that's indisputable. It harder to solidify the simple claim she's known primarily as Queen of the UK. In what context? Globally? Isn't it that she's known commonly by most around the world as the Queen of England? I'd say so, but that doesn't mean WP:COMMONNAME allows us to say in the lede Elizabeth II is the Queen of England and...

Even if we pretend "Queen of the United Kingdom" really is how some random majority percentage of the global population thinks of Elizabeth II, it hasn't been explained how "since 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and 12 other countries from various dates" fails to impart to readers first-off that the Elizabeth II this article is about is the one that is Queen of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle's helpful comment reminds me that in practise, as others have pointed out, there is a real and important distinction which perhaps should be right up there in the lead of the lead: other realms have a governor(-)general. It doesn't bother most of us most of the time, but when it comes to proclamations generally, and especially at accession, as well as in connection with regal matters such as the Perth Agreement, it is of great constitutional importance that the process is meticulously observed by all responsible officials. That is living fact, not past history, and is not a matter of needless vying for status which is well enough known and accepted, and undisputed. Qexigator (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth progresses past the Coronation Chair

If I may add, Qex. We must also take into account, the location of Elizabeth II's coronation. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey, does anyone doubt it? Who could forget it? With Commonwealth realms loyally represented. Widely watched on screens live and later in the Commonwealth countries and others. Qexigator (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The equal status of the realms may be "needless" in your opinion and known to you. It isn't to others.

Do we need to get into the constitutional structures of the states Elizabeth heads in the intro to her bio? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We need not exaggerate the ignorance of others or underestimate their intelligence or appetite for unwanted pedantry on points of status, or capacity for valuing points of actual information. Qexigator (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you focus and answer my questions, please?

1) Do we need to get into the constitutional structures of the states Elizabeth heads in the intro to her bio?

2) How does "Elizabeth II is, since 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and 12 other countries from various dates" fail to impart to readers first-off that the Elizabeth II this article is about is the one that is Queen of the United Kingdom? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To focus on the point at issue: so far the latest version under consideration is Ghmyrtle's at 18:37, 26 September. If there is support for making more of the difference in the life and work of the queen, it could be done simply by adding at the end of that proposed version: "...where she reigns and resides, while being represented by a governor-general residing in each of the fifteen other realms where she reigns. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

+to read thus: Elizabeth II ... is queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent Commonwealth realms. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Since her accession in 1952, the number of her realms has varied; she is now the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where she resides, while being represented by a governor-general residing in each of the fifteen other realms where she reigns. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And my second question pertains to Ghmyrtle's. Why won't you (or anyone else, for that matter) answer it?

She reigns in all her realms. But, that addition is another matter I don't think we need to consider right now. How the monarch operates in each realm is covered at Commonwealth realm. It shouldn't be in biographies (unless some change to the constitution of a country, or constitutions of countries, took place during the reign of that monarch). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this shorter version: Elizabeth II ... is queen regnant of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where she resides, and of other independent Commonwealth realms, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Since her accession in 1952, the number of her realms has varied; she is now the head of state of 16 realms including the United Kingdom. Qexigator (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we necessarily have to remove the third paragraph. The first paragraph could read: "Elizabeth II (...) is queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Here the advantage is that we provide a very brief distinction between the United Kingdom and the other realms while keeping the sentence short. -- Hazhk (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The UK has even more special prominence over the other realms, "other independent Commonwealth realms" is vague, governors-general are off topic, and she has residences in other countries.

All this about governors-general and place of residence is a shift of the goalposts. The original concern was that the lede didn't identify Elizabeth II the way she apparently (still no proof) commonly is: as Queen of the United Kingdom (a false claim, but, no matter now). As there's still no answer to my question, it can be concluded the opening "Elizabeth II is, since 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and 12 other countries from various dates" successfully imparts to readers first-off that the Elizabeth II this article is about is the one that is Queen of the United Kingdom, thereby quelling the concerns of those who felt the earlier version of the lede didn't communicate that fact well enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As I've been reading over the latest posts in the last several hours, the consensus has developed that "...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..." shall be in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The principal place of residence and the method of performing the role of monarch through resident governors-general is more than a little relevant to this topic, namely, the Queen's person, life and work. The pot was stirred with some vigour to pursue a point that has been conceded, but we should not close our minds to letting in what can be seen to have been missing before, and dropping what is now seen to be of less, if any, importance. So far, I concur with the latest version, Hazhk's at 22:41, 26 September. Qexigator (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Hazhk's version is also acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that's odd; governors and residences don't come up in the ledes of the bios of any other monarchs going back at least to Victoria. I'd wager that's because the lede of a bio isn't the place to get into that kind of thing and the relationship of the monarch to governors is the same for every monarch that's had them, so, it just gets repetitive going through that in every biography, rather than covering it in general in more appropriate places, like Commonwealth realm, Head of state, Governor-general, List of viceregal representatives of Elizabeth II. But, for the sake of argument, let's put aside the question of why this page should be special and look at adding in representatives. The first question is: what's to be done about the Australian state governors, Canadian provincial lieutenant governors, the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands, and the Counsellors of State? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm off now for a friend's birthday tonight. So, you all will have the pleasure of me not being here for a while. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we may safely ignore them, as per real-world practice. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking Qexigator, not you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mies. and Pete: I would no more propose "ignore" than would the Queen, but obviously governor-general suffices in this context for the 15 which have been enumerated. For Niue and Cook Islands, see Table, note 4 Commonwealth realm. Qexigator (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Balancing aspects" says, "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." The Queen's role as sovereign of the UK receives far more attention in rs than her other roles. Whether or not sources are correct to provide greater weight to that role is beside the point. Also, I would leave out the term "Commonwealth Realm" - it is obscure. Even the term "realm" to refer to a political unit is obscure. TFD (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. For what it's worth, I also support Hazhk's 22:41 wording. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• I also agree with TFD. I think we should also refrain from using 'Realm' or 'Commonwealth Realm' in the first paragraph; aside from governors-general, there's no reason to get overly technical. Some editors' object to singling out the United Kingdom because they consider it an arbitrary distinction - so we should show how it isn't an arbitrary distinction, but it is the one country she resides in. -- Hazhk (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion, we seem to have converged on letting the most recent version (Hazhk's) be adopted for the first paragraph to be revised thus:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of the United Kingdom <+>, where she residess,</+> and of 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This small insertion is not controversial, and I will go ahead, but leaving open any further revisions in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, although I do not see any reason for the link to Buckingham Palace. TFD (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. Though I would also remove the Buckingham Palace link since it is neither her official residence or her "home". -- Hazhk (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I capitalized Queen (aswell as linked to Queen regnant), as this is done with the intros of other monarchs. PS: I won't loose any sleep over this, however. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved? May we now treat the current revised version[13] as sufficing to resolve the question raised at the start of this section about the opening description of Elizabeth II , and let anything further be put in a new section? Qexigator (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm good. --Pete (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• If I felt any better about it? I'd be twins. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New proposal supporting 16 of 53

Briefly read over the arguments, and quite frankly all are more or less valid. However, Mies is correct in stating that Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK and 'a bunch of other countries not worth mentioning' is a very British centric (and thus POV) way of presenting the facts. Saying she is queen of 16 Commonwealth realms is the most neutral way of presenting that fact as possible. However, the wish to make it known that the Queen resides in UK, and is thus the most intimately involved in and known for her role in the UK is also a valid point to make known as soon as possible in the lead. I've tweaked the lead to make the first sentence neutral, but at the same time the second sentence hammers home the UK centricity of the role due to the Queen's residency there. The "Queen of the UK and 'other rubbish realms'" bit is still left in the infobox. The only other thing I tweaked was the fact that the office of Supreme Governor of the Church of England only exists for the Queen of the UK, correct me if I'm wrong (although that title certainly does not apply to the Queen of Canada). Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE stop trying to force your version & respect the consensus that's been reached here. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached here. This conversation has been going for two days and within that short time and over objections has changed the standing consensus of several years. WP:CONACHIEVE "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal."

The objections raised by the dissenters were in no way taken into account into your version, dissenters were not brought on board, there is in no way "as wide agreement as can be reached", and finally two days is grossly insufficient for appropriate good-faith consensus building to take place. This is not consensus building in the Wikipedia spirit, but an individual trying to ram something through as quickly as possible over the voices of objection. The version I placed forward, "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms. As she resides in the United Kingdom, she is represented in each of her other 15 realms by a resident governor-general. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and, in the United Kingdom, Supreme Governor of the Church of England" takes into account both sides of the issue (neutrality of 16 realms & UK centric residency) to take "into account all of the proper concerns raised", and to "adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters". trackratte (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You shoul've proposed your version here, first. Not, ram it into the intro & then, edit-spat to keep it there. I admire your passion for the topic, but not the brass knuckles method. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To the topic at hand. I oppose your proposal, as I'm content with Hazhk's version which was implimented by Qexigator. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

From conversation on my talkpage:

I admire your (and Mies') passion concerning the issue at hand. But, I don't think that jumping in with a Bleep'em editing style, is helpful. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, actually, it's called (WP:CON) consensus building, where "In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute". Second, there is no consensus for the changes you just made, as the side of the objectors was not taken into account, no compromises were made to bring the objectors on board, there are still objectors, and the discussion has only been two days. Third, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". It's called good-faith consensus building in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, and your ramming through your own POV/non-consensual edits is counter-productive. trackratte (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As you're a Canadian monarchist, I understand your strong feelings about this topic. But, let's wait until the others have reviewed your proposal. Give folks a chance, they might support it. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a monarchist, I don't personally care about the royal family, their role in any country except for Canada, nor the merits of monarchist systems more globally. I'm a (Canadian) constitutionalist who spends a great deal of my time studying Canadian constitutional law and theory, and lobbying for its proper implementation. Back to the point, in line with policy, the last stable version should remain in place within the article (as it reflects the last version that had consensus), until such time as proper consensus can be achieved. To be clear, I don't like the last stable version, and neither do you, but the point here is to arrive at something everyone can live with in reflecting the facts. There shouldn't be any edits or reverts from the last stable version (that no one likes) until we have true consensus. trackratte (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated the version I support. We'll have to let the others have their say. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it we have two seemingly intractable camps, one with a UK-centric view (primacy of the UK over all other realms), and the NPOV-view (all realms equal in accordance to laws and convention). I propose the following in an attempt to address the principal concern of both sides:

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms. As she resides and is most directly involved within the United Kingdom, she is represented by a resident governor-general in each of her other 15 realms. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and, in the United Kingdom, Supreme Governor of the Church of England"

I oppose this version, as it doesn't present common usage in the international community. Like it or not, the United Kingdom is the realm most closely assocated with Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GoodDay, first, the reason why you state you don't support is included right there in the proposal: "As she resides and is most directly involved within the United Kingdom". Second, there is no requirement that articles reflect common usage, only the titles. Second, as we can see from this Ngram, the common usage is "Queen of England", with "Queen of the United Kingdom" being just as prevalent as "Queen of Canada" and "Queen of Australia". So, you're advocating for "Elizabeth II is Queen of England, two non-independent countries, and 16 other independent countries...", or something to that effect. If there even were a common usage requirement to article text, which there isn't, we would be forced to present something which is quite evidently problematic from an encyclopedic point of view. Also, even for article titles, WP:COMMONNAME states that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered", but once again, this topic has nothing to do with the title of the article, but with presenting neutral, factual information in as readable and accessible manner possible. trackratte (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, like it or not, the United Kingdom is the realm which is the most closely assocated with the Queen. This fact should be reflected in the intro with "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other...." If we followed your arguments, we'd have to change the intros of George V, Edward VIII & George Vi to begin as "King of the British Empire. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Being sovereign of the UK automatically includes all of its constituent parts, including all colonies and overseas territories. See Queen Victoria and the addition of the Empress of India title, or Margaret I of Denmark which lists all three countries equally in the same sentence, or Christian II of Denmark which lists countries by date acquired. The norm within Wikipedia is to neutrally list all of the countries within the first sentence. In any event, you're attacking a strawman as there is no common title requirement within the text, and if there were, it would be Queen of England, not UK. trackratte (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on this article's intro. We'll have to let the others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we've come to a version which is worth putting up for comment. Let's get a clear view before edit-warring and bickering too much. If we follow wikiprocess, then those on the short end of the stick will be able to take ownership of the result, rather than feeling disgruntled and cheated. --Pete (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Starting off with "Queen of 16...", is a non-starter. "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other..." is more accurate with the international community's view. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, where's this version "worth putting up for comment"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This revision suffices[14] if "53" is to be mentioned. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

+The version as of 10:11, 28 September 2015[15] gives all the neccessary information in an orderly, encyclopedic, npov manner. First paragraph, UK "...and of 15 other..."; third, "Upon her accession... queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries..."; fourth, "Today...Queen of Antigua and Barbuda,..., Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Qexigator (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose revision as of 02:36, 28 September.[16]. While noting respectfully Track.'s comments above, to my mind, claiming that unless the article includes 16 in the first sentence it would be unduly UK centric would err in the direction of learned nonsense, such as Erasmus might have cited in In Praise of More. Qexigator (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I support Qexigator's edits, as an improvement to the previous text, in line with the majority opinion on this page, and do not support reverting to an inferior prior version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Qexigator's improvements, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't and obviously nor does trackratte. I don't think the lede necessarily has to say "15 of the 53...", but, "the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms" is indeed biased toward the UK. I made a proposal above and not one person has managed to express a problem with it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that the reason for that was that the discussion rapidly moved on - not because anyone else supported that wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Policy says we "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." In this case reliable sources are more likely to provide greater stress to the sovereign's role as Queen of the UK. Also, saying the Queen is "in the United Kingdom, Supreme Governor of the Church of England" is clumsy. England is in the UK. Its like saying in the UK, Charles is the Prince of Wales. TFD (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Likely"? That doesn't seem to sit well with WP:V. Regardless, the lede presently gives "greater stress" to the UK by a) placing it first (so the lede says "Queen of the United Kingdom", exactly as many here have said they want it) and b) stating its where Elizabeth resides most of the time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that reliable sources when they mention the Elizabeth are more likely to refer to her role as Queen of the United Kingdom or queen of another Commonwealth Realm. If the latter, which one? TFD (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The current version, as put forward by Miesianiacal, is poor. It reads as though it's been written by a constitutional lawyer, rather than by someone trying to impart basic information to a wide readership. The precise date of her accession is too trivial for the lead; as are the references to "various dates", the Commonwealth realms, and the number of realms varying between her accession and 1992. There is no need for that information to be in the opening paragraph - it distracts from a clear summary statement of who she is and what her role is. The role of the opening paragraph is not to convey precise legalistic accuracy - per MOS:BLPLEAD, "avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that, There are official "residences" outside UK, though in ordinary language she "resides" in UK (London, Windsor, Balmoral). would the following trimmed version be acceptable (+ tweak, or not)? Version as at 17:49, 28 September[17] is better, and draft below is withdrawn

Elizabeth II... is , since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant Queen of the United Kingdom where she predominantly resides, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and of 12 and 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her.countries. These 16 states are now known as the Commonwealth realms <+>Upon her accession, Elizabeth became</+> Head of the Commonwealth, comprising 53 states in all, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. --Qexigator (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Qexigator (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: She is "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" everywhere, it is a title specific to her and her alone, - it is defined by the use of "Church of England." She attends the Church of Scotland in Scotland, but she is not governor of that Presbyterian Church. Was there ever a reason for such awkward wording?

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is queen regnant of the United Kingdom. She acceded to the title on 6 February 1952 on the death of her father King George VI. She was crowned on 2 June 1953. She is also queen of the Commonwealth realms, including 16 countries and other territories, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Then remove the next three paragraphs as being entirely too detailed and not in summary style to begin with. Collect (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That won't do, actually. She did not accede to the title 'queen regnant of the United Kingdom'; no need here to state date of her coronation; she has never been "Queen of the Commonwealth realms": while there is a United Kingdom, there is no Kingdom of Commonwealth Realms, but she is Head of the Commonwealth, with totally different political and constitutional significance. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

+ Given the length and density of the article as a whole, the 5 paragraph lead is not overlong, and serves well enough as a summary. It may need a little pruning and tweaking, as part of the usual ongoing editing process. This is under current discussiont. Maybe some others agree with the drastic cut proposed in the above comment, but that is unlikely to be acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've disregarded Mies' version & restored the "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other..." style. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

And you violated WP:3RR by doing so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of the above is acceptable; all stray far away from Wikipedia's neutrality policy. "It reads like a constitutional lawyer wrote it" is an unfounded personal opinion. This encyclopaedia gives facts and does so in a clear and neutral manner, not in a way that ignores facts and allows bias just so it can appeal to the lowest common denominator. But, frankly, I fail to see how "is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries" reads any less like the words of a lawyer than does "is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 12 other countries from various dates."

I met you "she's British!" "and 15 other whatever countries" people half-way with my proposal and even incorporated the "she lives mostly in the UK" info. If placing the UK as the very first country mentioned in the opening sentence, stating explicitly that it's where she lives, having multiple other mentions of the UK in the lede, and the phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries" in the infobox doesn't impart to people that the UK is really, really special, then this dispute has become about something else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mies, I've reverted your UKCANZ+12 wording, as it has no consensus on this page (whereas the UK+15 wording seems to have formed a loose consensus, with the finer details being thrashed out). You seem to be the only editor supporting it, so if anyone's edit warring, it's you. Your previous edit summary ("suggested at talk & received no rejection") was completely disingenuous. IgnorantArmies (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

People need to quit pretending there's a consensus where there is none, confusing, apparently, consensus and vote counting; Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Can you point out where on this talk page anyone voiced a reason not to use my proposed opening before I inserted it? If someone did, I certainly missed it; I asked numerous times for an explanation as to how it didn't do what others wanted and I recall getting zero response to each. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal:, surely you're better than an edit war over this. I've seen you around the place, you must know that you can't drop your preferred version in while there's a discussion going on and expect other editors to just sit tight. The whole point of the discussion has been to decide the wording of on the first paragraph, especially the first sentence. I can't be bothered finding the exact number, but there are several editors who have explicitly supported the UK+15 wording; you are the only person supporting your +12 wording. People here are generally willing to compromise, but saying things like "none of the above is acceptable" isn't exactly going to get them in that kind of mood. IgnorantArmies (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again: I made a composition that includes what's been asked for by others here; not what I think is the best opening, but, a compromise. I tried four times (not including first making the proposal) to get anyone to explain how that suggestion failed to meet people's wants and got zero reply. So, don't make it sound as though I'm bullying through what I want without listening to anyone. If anything's disingenuous, it's that accusation. And, it's rather hypocritical, too: Crafting a wording that included "queen of the United Kingdom" first and gave it prominence with the added "where she predominantly resides" bit was a compromise from me; refusing to allow anything that doesn't have the words "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries" in it (to the point of actually breaking 3RR, for some) is an unwillingness to compromise from quite a few editors here. Yet, I'm in the wrong now? Please. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

IF you've a proposal? make it here. Don't try to force it into the intro. Allow us to review it here. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please pay better attention. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who hasn't been paying attention. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There have been 25 edits on the lead made by 6 different editors today alone. There is clearly no consensus for anything here. I've restored the last stable version of the lead, which is Wikipedia policy to leave the last stable version in place when there is no consensus until consensus can be achieved and the issues resolved.

Secondly, whoever reformatted this page since my last comment did a terrible job. The title of this section "New proposal supporting 16 of 53" is not at all what the proposal was even about, which led to a lot of "votes" being cast which were clearly done without actually reading the proposal as it makes no mention of this 16 out of 53 nonsense. Qex removed the last stable version within hours and placed his personal version, even though at that time there was only 2 votes in one camp, 1 vote in the middle, and 1 vote in the other camp, clearly nowhere near consensus. This is blatently against the spirit of this site. Leave the last stable version where it is, it isn't going to kill anyone, achieve actual consensus over a few weeks, and lets focus on improving the article instead of trying to beat eachother over the head with constant edit warring on the main page which is helping precisely no one and is doing a disservice to the Encyclopedia and its users. trackratte (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)r

Add me to the list of today's editors. I reverted your change. There are only two editors in support of your version. The salient point is that it is NPOV to pretend that the Queen is equally Queen of 16 nations, when the common view is that she is Queen of one as a priority far outdistancing her nominal monarchy in other places. Perhaps we could put up all of the various versions of the lede in an RfC and test support for each? --Pete (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There's actually three who've expressed their continued acceptance of the way the lede was for years, Pete/Skyring. I'm sure trackratte counted you as an against.

The salient point in trackratte's remarks was there is no consensus in favour of any change and it's "Wikipedia policy to leave the last stable version in place when there is no consensus until consensus can be achieved and the issues resolved". But, when have you ever let that fact get in your way? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

They were not my changes, and the version you just reverted wasn't mine. It was the last stable version which I don't support, but that's not the point, no consensus currently exists, so in accordance with WP:NOCON the last stable version remains in the interim. So, to be clear, you just reimplemented one sides proposed version over the last stable version in the face of continued opposition against policy. I'm not advocating for the last stable version, I'm advocating for everyone to calm down, leave the page alone at the last stable version in line with policy, take a deep breath, and come back to the table with a view to improving this place instead of screaming at each other. If anything, the last stable version should remain, and everyone should take a 24-hour cool off period. I'm not emotionally invested in anyone's proposal, all I'm interested in right now is for policy to be respected and for a little level-headed decency shown by all parties concerned. trackratte (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but let's test the support for all versions. Discussion has been so convoluted that I'm hesitant to compile a definitive list for an RfC. Perhaps editors could assist by putting up the versions they have identified? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you disagree with Pete, but reference your new section below, I propose we assign a date to commence reviewing the proposals, as there is little sense in everyone piling in immediately as no one has had the requisite time to go away, sleep on it, and come back with a fresh mind-set. How about we compile options for the next 7 days, and begin the actual work of consensus building on that date? For example, people put forward propositions, and we go over and discuss them starting the 5th of Oct, that way we're not all rushing in to 'outbid' one another which will just naturally denigrate into a frenzied shouting match once again. trackratte (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

An Rfc seems to be the way forward. Though I must confess, it's odd to see the progress of the last few days, being stymied by two individuals. Anyways, it's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean the tyranny of a simple majority, nor does it mean tyranny of the minority. Consensus building is not "the result of a vote", but "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, and whose goal it is to "arrive with an absence of objections" WP:CON. Mies concerns are valid ones, which is further demonstrated by the fact that this isn't the first time this discussion has occurred and the last stable consensus directly reflected Mies current concerns and held for what appears to be a significant period of time. If Mies' concerns were frivolous and fringe, then they would not have stood the test of time and the scrutiny and conversations that lead to consensus forming around Mies proposal. Your concerns of weight are valid as well, although not an overriding requirement, they do bear keeping in mind when building the lede. The trick is for us to take a cooling off period, and try to come back with an open and honest attempt to accomodate and incorporate both sides of the debate, and not simply try to out-edit and out-scream eachother until one side "wins" getting their way 100% and the other "loses". Consensus is about compromise and incorporating others valid opinions. trackratte (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Candidate versions of lede

Discussion has grown heated above, but it seems there is strong support for a change to the long-standing lede, which describes Queen Elizabeth II as queen of 16 nations all at once, without identifying any order of precedence or importance. There have been various versions proposed in discussion, but I'd like to sort out a definitive listing ahead of an RfC. Let's have some wikiprocess instead of shouting and stamping our feet and edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Gents, not sure where you'd like this comment to go, but in looking at what information everyone wants to have in the lead, the points are as follows:

1. Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
2. All of her realms are distinct and separate from the UK, and are all politically and legally equal in status.
3. She is a resident of and primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom above her role in all of her other realms.
4. She is represented in all of her realms by a resident governor general (excepting of course, the UK).
5. She is head of an organization of states called the Commonwealth.
6. She is, in her capacity as Queen of the U.K., also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

As I understand it, these are all of the points for inclusion which have been brought up to date. So the trick is to place these 6 facts in just a few sentences in as neutral and readable a way as possible. If the reader immediately gets all of those 6 points within the first couple of sentences, then I think everyone that has commented above would be satisfied. trackratte (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fact is, Elizabeth II is mostly associated with the United Kingdom. The UK is unique among the Commonwealth realms, too. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, point three already above, duly noted. trackratte (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Options

(Longstanding version) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This version is unacceptable, as it fails to present the UK as the country that's the most closely associated with Elizabeth II. We must reflect International common-usage. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree, but I'm just looking for candidate wordings here, so they may be listed in an RfC, which will attract more eyes, and we can gauge a wider view and hopefully consensus for another version. I personally don't support this version, but it is appropriate to list it first. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GoodDay, I understand you're rushed, but let's just take a step back and let all of the proposals come in, reflect on it, and then start the work of consensus building later on. Right now I think everyone has their blinders on and is pretty deeply dug in, and are emotionally unwilling to seek honest compromise with the goal of gradual improvement here. Sometimes it takes a few days to realise there are no winners or losers here, just a bunch of folks who should be working to improve articles by making them more detailed, factual, and readable for Wikipedia's users. trackratte (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Who's rushed? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable, for reasons differing from GoodDay only insofar as, in naming articles we should "reflect International common-usage" while in the content of articles we present documented facts, whether subscribed to by "common-usage" or not. It happens, however, to be a documented fact that E2 is most closely associated -- by residence, rearing, coronation, worship, funding, coverage, etc with the UK -- so the lede is justified in affirming that and would be misleading to fail to disclose it. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnacceptable. Concur with User:GoodDay's thoughts. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is fine. It's what was reached by consensus after a very long discussion involving many editors and it stood the test of time. The snippet is misleading, too, as it omits the fact Elizabeth was still described as queen of the UK in the lede, which nullifies the "common usage" argument. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not acceptable, per weight. The sovereign is most notable for her role as Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't believe the "16 of 53 member states" has any bearing on her role as Queen. Queen of Canada not supreme gov of UofE, so I don't particularly like the way it comes across here as I find it misleading. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: needs sentence added mentioning UK (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Excess detail which is not useful in the lead. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(TFD) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable, not preferred: minimizes "15 other" states by not naming them. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable and Preferred - Simple and balanced. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is imbalanced with a bias favouring the UK and against the remaining Commonwealth realms relegated to the status of "others". As such, it flies in the face of 80-odd year old international agreement (Balfour Declaration of 1926) that is a core principle of the arrangement between the realms, which are what's being represented in this sentence as what most greatly defines Elizabeth II as a notable figure (her being queen of all of them). We shouldn't be misleading readers to think there is inequality among the realms or plant a false impression in their minds that Elizabeth is really queen of one country and just happens to have a sort of withered association of tradition with the rest.

If it's meant to say "Elizabeth II is mostly known as Queen of the UK" (which she's not; and certainly not "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries") or "Elizabeth II is personally involved more with the UK", then it fails; neither of those messages comes through. Pointing to WP:COMMONNAME is also a red herring; it applies to article titles only and (hat tip to trackratte), even so, states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable and preferred. TFD (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't believe the "16 of 53 member states" has any bearing on her role as Queen. Queen of Canada not supreme gov of UofE, so I don't particularly like the way it comes across here as I find it misleading. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable Though the number "15" may change at any point. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(Qex) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable, not preferred. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See my remarks for "TFD". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Arbitrarily diminishes the status of 15 co-equal states in contradiction to political and legal reality, and is therefore misleading for an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable with the same caveat. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(Qex II) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable, not preferred. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See my remarks for "TFD". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Arbitrarily diminishes the status of 15 co-equal states in contradiction to political and legal reality, and is therefore misleading for an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(Trackratte) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, although she is most often associated with her role within the United Kingdom. As she resides in the U.K., she is represented in each of her other 15 realms by a resident governor-general. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This version as unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Preferred, as the option which treats all of Elizabeth's realms equally while acknowledging her unique relationship with one and the public's awareness of that relationship. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Preferred, as the option which keeps to the spirit of the Balfour Declaration and the London Declaration, specifically "acceptance of the King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth". As such it reflects the legal and constitutional position. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This version introduces material not found in the article body that would be difficult to source and could be open to dispute by (1) stating that there are governors-general because she is non-resident; (2) implying that supreme governor is part of her official title in the UK; and (3) emphasizing her position as honorary head of the English national church while ignoring her association with the national church of Scotland, which she also holds "in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom". It also repeats "the UK" three times in as many sentences. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - For reasons already stated by DrKiernan. NickCT (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not adamantly against mention of governors-general, but I do lean heavily against it. The lede of this article that is specifically about one person shouldn't get into constitutional matters that apply to whomever is monarch, not specifically Elizabeth. Additionally, it draws a seemingly arbitrary line; Australian state governors are as much direct representatives of the Queen, as are Counsellors of State, yet, they're not to be mentioned? Lastly, as DrKiernan notes, the article does not discuss the general subject of viceregal representation and so it summarises nothing if it is in the lede. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely, the only reason it is in there is because it seemed that one or more people wanted it mentioned in the conversation section above, and thus fell into one of my six points that need to be accomplished to achieve consensus that I put in above. Personally, I don't think the governors-general need mentioning. I think when we go into the next "round" and take the top two or three results from here, we can then discuss how to improve upon the final proposals towards a final consensus. trackratte (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Preferred, alhthough as Mies says, I think it would be better to drop mention of the governors general, can be tweaked post-RFC if it makes it that far. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Introduces material not bearing on the person. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(Qex III) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is also Head of the Commonwealth, comprising 53 states in all, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of the nine versions above, in my view, Track's and the one labeled "Longstanding" are least acceptable. TFD's is acceptable, and Qex III is more acceptable than the other two Qex, and the versions below (including Qex IIII) are less acceptable or unacceptable. Qexigator (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

+ In other words, if the TFD/Skyring (noted below) version is adopted, only 3 and 4 listed above need be added, given that: 5 is already there; 6 is false (see DrKiernan's comment); 2 is sufficiently evident in the context of the article and need not be unduly and awkwardly pushed to the detriment of the article's topic and content as a whole. Given the complete list in the infobox drop-down, the naming of all 16 in a single alphabetic list may be unnecessary, but it would help a reader to have the list in or after the first paragraph. The details now in the third paragraph are not needed in the lead, given the content of "Continuing evolution of the Commonwealth", including the Further information link to "Historical development of the Commonwealth realms" which could go to the part headed "From Queen Elizabeth's accession ". Qexigator (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See my remarks for "TFD" and "Trackratte". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Arbitrarily diminishes the status of 15 co-equal states in contradiction to political and legal reality, and is therefore misleading for an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(Mies) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other countries from various dates; together, those 16 independent states are known as the Commonwealth realms. Upon her accession, she also became Head of the Commonwealth (comprising 53 states) and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Between then and 1992, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some became republics.

This version is unacceptable, as it seems to be trying to downplay the United Kingdom's unique status & close assosciation with the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable (neatly sums up all the info necessary to distinguish the terms used therein; coutnries, realms, Commonwealth. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable per GoodDay. NickCT (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, how can I find this unacceptable? In defense of my own work: While I find the "where she predominantly resides" part superfluous (again, it doesn't summarise anything in the article itself), the above is neutral, it isn't misleading, and it is a compromise between the version that refers to all realms equally ("16 independent countries") and that which gives the UK seemingly undue prominence; rather than it being unclear what divides the UK from the rest of the realms, as in other versions, it divides the realms by date of Elizabeth's accession as queen of each country: four on the same date, 12 each on a different date. It also achieves in one paragraph what a number of other proposals do in two. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is my preferred version. I don't think we can find a version to satisfy all, but Mies has put some thought into this, not just in being accurate, but in addressing the concerns of others. It is also a very fitting opening for a BLP; Elizabeth II is first and foremost a monarch, and although the UK is her first and closest realm, it is clear that she holds the others high in her regard. Her sense of duty and responsibility shows this clearly, as is illustrated throughout the article. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not preferred but more acceptable than most. Acknowledges some of the other realms, however still diminishes 12 other co-equals to an inferior status to that of the other four. Besides the "12 others" bit, I see no major issue with this version going forward. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Adds non-relevant stuff to a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(Qex IIII) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries from various dates; these 16 states are known as the Commonwealth realms. Upon her accession, Elizabeth also became Head of the Commonwealth (comprising 53 states currently) and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

This version is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See my remarks for "Mies", except in this version, it reads as though the 12 other countries are independent while the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not. There's a precedence to the realms as well (by "seniority"; I don't have a ref at hand); a minor matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not preferred, but in line with MIES above, better than "UK and 15 others". trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(DrKiernan) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries: Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. These 16 states are now known as the Commonwealth realms. She is also Head of the Commonwealth (comprising 53 states currently) and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Since her accession on 6 February 1952, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some became republics.

This version is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable, 2nd preference. Comprehensive. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See my remarks for "Mies". Also, I don't outright reject the naming of the countries, as the lede originally did. However, I think "12 other independent countries" becomes redundant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not preferred, see my comments for QexIII above, also listing all the countries while fair, is somewhat unwieldy. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And (Collect) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is queen of the United Kingdom. She acceded to the title on 6 February 1952 on the death of her father King George VI. She was crowned on 2 June 1953. She is also queen of the Commonwealth realms, including 16 countries and other territories, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Leads should be short and in summary style, and not excessively detailed - details go into the main body of the article and are not useful in a lead. This gives her title, date she acceded to the title, avoids the "list of specific countries" problem, and includes her role in the CofE. Remember many folks will not get past the lead if it is too wordy. Collect (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Preferred Short, simple, comprehemsive. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See my remarks for "TFD". This wrongly states the UK is not a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As this suggestion most certainly does not say the UK is not part of the Commonwealth, I find your cavil to be ill-founded. She is queen of each part separately and collectively - and we do not list her other titles here. The idea is to give readers an accurate and short overview of the BLP. Would you like to add the Channel Islands peculiar status here? Isle of Man? We could muddy this up to be four pages long for the single paragraph <g> but WP:MOS appears to back a short summary in these cases. Collect (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am telling how I read it. She "is queen of the United Kingdom... She is also queen of the Commonwealth realms". The word "also" quite clearly separates the UK from the Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"also" is not needed then. Collect (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The UK is also a Commonwealth realm & so "other 15" needs to be added, to make it acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Worst of the bunch as leads reader to believe, at the outset, that she is simply Queen of the UK and that's it. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Preferred simple and uses official title as its base. Collect (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(Collect II):

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) was born April 21, 1926, in London, England. She is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, and Defender of the Faith." She became queen on the death of her father, George VI, February 6, 1952.

is also completely unusable in any encyclopedia article? Collect (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Preferred Uses official titles. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And (Ghmyrtle) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states. She acceded to the throne on 6 February 1952. She is Head of the Commonwealth of Nations and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. She resides in Britain, and is represented by a resident Governor-General in each of her other realms.

This is missing reason for the split between the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and the 12 other realms, which is the exact same problem all the "United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" proposals suffer from. Also, Elizabeth resides in places other than Britain. And my opinion on mention of governors-general remains the same. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable, having Australia, Canada & New Zealand highlighted. Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other...", is more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not preferred, but better than simply "Queen of the UK and 15 other...". trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose "resides in Britain" is pretty useless. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And (DrKiernan2) Elizabeth II... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations, including the United Kingdom.

Oppose: Could invite the question, whether in pedantic or trivial mood: Why not name one of the others instead? Or say, "from UK to Antigua and Barbuda (in descending order of seniority) and from Tuvalu to UK (in ascending order of population)".

Qexigator (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This version is unacceptable, as it (IMHO) appears odd, distorts the fact that the United Kingdom is the realm that's the most closely associated with the Queen & is also the realm that's unique among the others. Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..., is more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And Qex revised (instead of Qex I-IIII): Elizabeth II... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. She resides in the United Kingdom and is represented by a resident governor-general in each of the other independent states where she is monarch. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This version is unacceptable, as its opening senetence is downplaying the United Kingdom's unique association with Elizabeth II & thus its unique status among the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Supporting comment: This retains the simplicity of the existing first sentence, which encompasses the content of the article as a whole, while compatibly mentioning the singularity of the Queen as monarch of UK and of her other monarchies, and, if briefly expanded in the main body in connection with how she conducts her life and work for the UK and for the other independent monarchies, will notably improve the article, in no way diminishing, downplaying, or belittling the importance of the association with her of any of them. Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose For same reasons. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Those are the various versions which have appeared in the article over the past couple of days. I've omitted some minor tweaking - frankly they all started to look the same after a while - and perhaps those editors identified with each version could buff them up a little to reflect minor edits? There were also several versions proposed in discussion, some involving more or less extensive surgery upun the lede as a whole. Um, I might get round to including them, should my eyes recover, but if others want to add their preferred candidates, that would be fine. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Pete, thanks for taking the time and effort to put all of this together. I see what you mean about it all just bleeding together into one schmozzle. Perhaps when we get around to tackling this (hopefully we wait at least 24 hours), we could create sections to have a few rounds, ie eliminating all of those which are unanimously removable, and whittle it down as we progress along. trackratte (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to see fine aspirations matched by avoiding edits[18] of a disruptive tendency. Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, someone has made a request for protection of this page at that version. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Following guidelines isn't disruptive. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite amazed that there's even resistance to "Queen of the United Kingdon and 15 other...". But hey, welcome to Wikipedia ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The summary of suggestions is useful. I like QEXIII at the moment; Trackrate's is a little too wordy, and I think over-emphasizes the importance of the Commonwealth. Options which list all the countries don't really work - I think we need to either have something along the lines of '16 states/Commonwealth Realms' or 'the United Kingdom and 15 others'. QEXIII is neat in that it explains why we are emphasizing the UK. Frankly I don't really see what's wrong with the long-standing version - the claim that we have to emphasize residence in the UK seems based on the idea that we need to copy/mimic verifiable sources, which I don't see anywhere in Wikipedia. But if editors want to change, then it equally doesn't seem to be particularly problematic. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we commence the next phase of choosing the top two proposals (or three if necessary) tomorrow (Wednesday) so that we can commence the formal RfC Thursday, and attempt to develop consensus by tweaking the top candidate Friday and Saturday so that in the end everyone is on board and can live with it. In this way we can aim to open up edits to the main page not before this Sunday to avoid any non-amicable edit warring on the main page which an admin had to come in to avoid. trackratte (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

After reminding self that the article is headed "Elizabeth II" not "Queen Elizabeth II (of UK)", and noting comments above and TFD's information about Gibraltar below, there is now something for me to add, modifying my previous comments. Let the first sentence be retained unchanged: Elizabeth II... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. This is plain fact and comprehends the article content (as others have remarked), but insert a new second third sentence to say something about UK, such as: She resides in the United Kingdom and she is represented by a resident governor-general in each of the other countries where she is monarch. Some brief mention of this in the body would in any case improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this article should go into the details of constitutional arrangements. It should be focused on her life and be structured as a biography. The lead already mentions other material not covered in the body (such as devolution). While I'm not proposing to delete that material, I don't think it should be added to. DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not merely constitutional, it is about her personally: where she lives, and how she is able to conduct herself from day to day in respect of all the monarchies from which she is absent in person, except for the occasional visit. How she lives and works from day to day and year to year. How she is engaged in the event of a crisis in one or more of the overseas monarchies. Does she go and visit in an emergency, or is it normally something she leaves to the local governor-general? Qexigator (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Works fine for me. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a response to trackratte or Qexigator? DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, Qexigator. I think that it is clear and reasonable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Various dates

The lead says, "queen regnant of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other countries from various dates." "From various dates" is inaccurate. The sovereign became queen of all her territories at the same time and none have been added since. TFD (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is totally accurate; as you're aware, it says "countries", not "territories". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ou appear to say that countries must be independent in order to be countries, which is not accurate. Regardless the sovereign was sovereign of all these countries since her ascension to the throne. Even if we accept your argument that there was no crown in right of Barbados until 1966, the sovereign was still recognized there. TFD (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It says quite clearly "those 16 independent states". Those "12 other countries" were not independent in 1952. If you want to pretend there's no difference between Elizabeth reigning in Barbados as queen of the UK and reigning there as queen of Barbados, you may as well advocate for the lede to simply say "is, since 6 February 1952, queen of her territories". But, nobody wants that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason we do not mention the territories is the same reason we refer to her role as Queen of the UK first - weight. However we do mention that monarchs from Victoria to George VI were emperors of India, not that George VI became emperor only when India became independent. And the sovereign is also queen of each Canadian province. We would not say she became queen of Quebec when that province separated, assuming it did. TFD (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest mentioning territories or provinces.

Of course we would. Elizabeth reigns in Quebec as Queen of Canada. If Quebec separated from Canada and made Elizabeth its queen, she would reign there as Queen of Quebec; she would've become Queen of Quebec the day that sovereign country came into existence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is by way of illustration. As the House of Lords decided, "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." It is erroneous to say that she only became queen the 16 countries at "various dates."

The sovereign is the queen of Quebec, just as she is of New South Wales, and would remain so at independence, just as she did when every other territory became independent. Quebec would not have made her their sovereign but would have retained her role as queen of Quebec.

TFD (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I was waiting for you to trot your old favourite out. It's irrelevant. The "Queen of Wales" isn't an actual office; hence, you can't find evidence of it. Elizabeth didn't become "Queen of Wales" in 1952; she started to reign over Wales as the sovereign queen of the United Kingdom. She didn't become "Queen of Barbados" in 1952; she started to reign over Barbados as the sovereign queen of the United Kingdom. She didn't become "Queen of Quebec" in 1952; she started to reign over Quebec as the sovereign queen of Canada. She didn't become "Queen of Tasmania" in 1952; she started to reign over Tasmania as the sovereign queen of Australia. She didn't become "Queen of Auckland" in 1952; she started to reign over Auckland as the sovereign queen of New Zealand. She became the sovereign queen of Barbados when that territory of the UK gained its independence and it became a country. That same process happened on various dates for the other 11 of those "12 other countries".

The lede says (or, said) Elizabeth "is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand"--all indisputably true--"and of 12 other countries from various dates; those 16 independent [emphasis mine] states are known as the Commonwealth realms." Even if you don't want to accept the facts in the preceding paragraph, you can't deny that Barbados wasn't an independent country in 1952, so, it can't have been one of the independent countries Elizabeth became queen of that year. It became one of the independent countries of which Elizabeth is queen on 30 November 1966. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the policy that says I should accept your opinion on constitutional law above that of the highest court in the United Kingdom? Also, you have misread the text. The Law Lords did not say the sovereign was "Queen of Wales", they said she was "Queen of England and Wales." While England and Wales united with Scotland and later Ireland, it remains distinct in some areas, such as the Church of England and the court system, neither of which extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

The crown of Tasmania is distinct from the crown of Australia and in fact pre-dates the federation. The sovereign has been represented by a governor since 1804. Until the 1970s the governors were appointed on the recommendation of the UK government, they are now appointed on the recommendation of the Tasmanian government.

Here is a link to a Supreme Court of Canada case that names "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada" as a litigant and "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia" as an intervener. Or do you find Canada's supreme court no more authoritative than the UK's?

Barbados became independent when the Barbados Independence Act 1966 came into effect. The act said that "Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Barbados." It did not create a government in Barbados, that already existed. The governor of Barbados was restyled the governor-general, and the premier was restyled the prime minister. The colonial legislature and courts likewise continued.

TFD (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the policy that says I should accept your personal misinterpretations of a couple of court rulings misapplied to this debate? You didn't prove what I wrote wrong in any way; what I wrote specifically addressed concepts like the Queen in Right of Canada and the Queen in Right of British Columbia.

It's nice you have a hobbyhorse, but, it doesn't belong here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not a misinterpretation, it is a direct quote. "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." And it is not a "couple of court rulings", it is a decision by the highest court in the UK, which specifically decided the queen of an overseas territory is distinct from the Queen of the UK. Sorry but I missed your writing about the Queen in right of Canada and BC. TFD (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a quote you've interpreted out of context. That's a misinterpretation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I interpret it to mean "the Queen is...queen of [every] territor[y] acknowledging her as head of state...." What's your interpretation? TFD (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My proposal for the lede speaks of Elizabeth becoming queen of independent countries. So, this argument is academic and there's more pressing matters, at the moment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright. In the meantime could you tell we where you wrote about the Queen in Right of Canada and the Queen in Right of British Columbia or do you mean your 21:25, 28 September comments cover it? TFD (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is how the government of Gibraltar sees it: "Under the Gibraltar Constitution, and under UK law, the Governor is the representative in Gibraltar of Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Gibraltar. He is not a representative or official of HMG in the UK....These propositions were established by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the Quark case..."[19]

Here is what Keith Azopardi, who is a barrister, says, "But as long as Gibraltar does not opt to become a Republic and would retain Her Majesty as Head of State of an independent Gibraltar, she would continue to be the Queen of Gibraltar as much after independence as she was before independence."[20]

TFD (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected, three days

Not an endorsement of the protected version. Please don't edit war on a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Noted that the freeze is at the version before Skyring's as of 18:57, 25 September 2015, "A more accurate representation. Wikipedia is about the only publication that shies away from mentioning her most visible role!"[21] The change was from "...the queen of 16..." to "the United Kingdom and 15 more"... "of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Qexigator (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This looks like it's the wrong version. Any chance NeilN could read the section above and adopt the language that is gathering consensus there. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, which option in that list is gathering consensus? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: - Haha. I was sorta hoping you'd read and decide yourself! Option 2,3,4,6 (i.e. TFD, Qex, Qex II, Qex III) haven't received any opposition. Note the version that's been protected (i.e. Longstanding version) seems to be opposed by everyone who has weighed in on it. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: Support for options 1 or 5 may be construed as opposition to the other options. The lack of explicit opposition may indicate positive support for an alternative. If "everyone who has weighed in" was opposed to the longstanding (and Trackratte) versions there would be no discussion. Perhaps "some" might be more accurate than "everyone"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: - As it stands in the current RfC posted above, everyone who has commented on the longstanding version has stated they oppose it. The Tackratte version has received majority opposition. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, I did look before I posted and there was no option that everyone clearly supported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: - It seems clear at the moment that the protected version is not the preferred version. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, it's the long standing version. Is it no longer correct? No. Is it obviously misleading? No. If you can point to consensus for a new preferred version, I will gladly make the change. Otherwise, there's no reason for rushing and editing through full protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: - Fair enough. One issue though is that the "long standing" version appears inherently unstable, by virtue of the fact that this debate keeps recycling. I think the longstanding version has always been somewhat incorrect and somewhat misleading which has led to the raft of efforts like the one above. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NeilN - Since you ask, let me say that you will be able to see that the balance of intelligible, emotive-free, npov was already agreeing with TFD/Skyring's change from 16 to 15 before the freeze, and is gathering further support. Most of the later proposals were to confirm 15 against reverts to 16, with add-ons or not. For instance, my addition about "resides..." was an expansion to show a reason for the singularity of the UK, something which would not need much emphasis outside this article, as Skyring/Pete and others have been at pains to point out. As far as I am aware, most everyday speech and writing takes that for granted, and I see no RS to the contrary cited in the article. It may be challenged in polemical debate (perhaps among a small number in Canada?) but we are not here to enter into polemics on either side of any such debate. A public and notable debate is, of course, reportable as such, duly sourced and proportioned to the article. As another instance, my proposal to add a list of all 16 alphabetically was to allow all to be mentioned, with favour to none, and UK at the end, to avoid the invidious naming of a few, leaving the rest to be among a nameless 12. Qexigator (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I support any version that mentions the UK first. I am undecided whether any other countries should be specifically mentioned but expect that issue can be resolved without edit-warring. TFD (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - Have you considered commenting in the section above? NickCT (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that irks me (a little) about this protected version, is that the individual who requested it, personally favoured that version. I would've preffered that an unbiased/uninvolved individual had made the request. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I did consider that but I will generally go back to a stable version before protecting for GAs and FAs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I sorta object to the use of the term "stable version". Stable version aren't versions that lead to dozens of RfCs and debates. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Being in the same state for over a year and a quarter is stable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

MIESIANIACAL - If you're going to lecture people on stability, it might be best if you had some to begin with, no? NickCT (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You were wrong. It's okay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: - Witty as usual. NickCT (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which version remains in the lede for three days while we sort things out. As Mies pointed out above, this version (or something close to it) has stood for over nine years. What's a few days more? I had immense difficulty in compiling the list above, particularly as other editors kept on diving in while the process was ongoing. I gave up and went off and read a book. About Anne Frank, as it turned out, and I've been so depressed ever since I felt no urgent need to hurry back here. I'd like it if we can settle this in a peaceful fashion. Please? --Pete (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to have subsections of the RfC. It is unwieldy since it requires votes on numerous versions and hard to avoid edit conflicts. TFD (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - Ditto on the "unwieldy" comment. No offense to User:Skyring, who deserves kudos for trying, but this RfC could have been put together better. NickCT (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The RFC also hasn't been tagged as such so it's unlikely you'll attract many outside opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I never intended it to develop the way it has. Perhaps a new (shorter) list of those versions most popular, and we can either sort out something we are all happy to live with, or go forward to an actual RfC? To be frank, one of Mies' versions resonated with me. We've been butting heads for years now, but I've always admired his scholarship and pragmatism. The lede shouldbe a summary of the whole article, and what sings out in the main body is that although the Queen's role in the UK is overwhelmingly pre-eminent, her attention and devotion to "her imperial family" as she described after the war what would later become the Commonwealth is firm and enduring. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to take the blame here. I should've waited until the options were put up & then in one post, review IMHO the versions from acceptable to unacceptable. Others would've followed the pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to assign blame. I could have avoided this by developing a list in userspace and then put it up fully-formed. So I'm to blame. What happened, happened. You acted in good faith, GoodDay. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It was my impression we were to use the above listing of options to see if we could weed any out among ourselves, then present the remainder in an RfC (if still necessary). A few are very similar to others (hence, my remarks about one applied to one or a few others). Perhaps we could decide to eliminate a few simply by deciding on the one thing that makes it only slightly different from another with a yea, nay, or meh. For example:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England

and

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England

are quite similar, differenced mainly by mention of governors-general. Same for

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England

and

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, although she is most often associated with her role within the United Kingdom. As she resides in the UK, she is represented in each of her other 15 realms by a resident governor-general. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England

If we can get an answer on whether or not to include mention of governors-general, we'll find out whether or not to eliminate either a whole or a part of at least one of the above. We then repeat the process for other elements, such as mention of place of most frequent residence. Or, maybe mention of place of most frequent residence versus mention of more frequent personal association. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference to "governors general" is only needed as a contrast to "where she resides", which is a parsimonious way of distinguishing her connection to the UK from her other realms, but is not the only possible option. To get around differences in their precise titles, instead of "governor general" a phrase such as "a resident represents the Crown's role" might be substituted. FactStraight (talk)

Pete has conscientiously and laboriously presented the main variants that sprouted after he made the first change from 16 to 15. The freeze at 16 not 15 was arguably the wrong choice, but either way the main contentious issue is whether to retain the "Longstanding" version or instead to adopt the simple change to 15: ...the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 more of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. Unless the change to 15 is adopted, there will be no need to consider the add-ons which became attached to that. But if the change is not made, there is no need to consider the add-ons (or rewrites) which were proposed by, or in deference to the opinions of, those who uphold 16. For my part, I see no good reason for continuing the debate about elaborating the text beyond the simple change first proposed. My own opinion at this stage is that there is a preponderance in favour of that simple change. Points for and against have been sufficiently presented above. Qexigator (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the others cropped up and they seem to be in play. If you think we should decide first on whether the words "of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries" stay or don't and then work on the rest, fine; it's the same process as I proposed, but in reverse. As I thought I made clear (no, I'm certain I did), my notion was to trim the options and then have a shorter list for an RfC on the change to the long-standing lede (the absolutely correct version to "freeze" the page at).

Still, you omitted the option of something between 16 and 15. I'll assume you didn't intend to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Qex. The base of the dispute was/is 16 -vs- UK & 15. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I was quoting whole numbers in respect of the main contentious issue, and in effect the only one, between the short version with 16 (as now frozen) and the short version with 15, which came in the next edit after it. There is no ambiguity in my comment, which quotes ...the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 more of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. Qexigator (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Agreed, well about what the question is! :-o Resolving the 16 -vs- UK & 15 issue is the core. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as you all understand and accept that an RfC and consensus building isn't about vote-getting for your preferred of two candidates. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's just hope you'll back off, if the result isn't to your liking & that you won't filibuster. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you in advance he won't. He will have to be made to back off. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There are other ways of emphasising the pre-eminence of the UK besides the black and white approach of "UK plus 15" and "16". I particularly like the version I identified as Mies in the list above. Not sure why Canada comes before Australia and New Zealand (date of independence, population?) and the "various dates" sounds a little awkward, but it is accurate and a summary of her position as a queen, which is the most striking thing about her life. --Pete (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already made my position clear on the matter, so there's little need to repeat it :) GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The order is a very minor matter; alphabetically versus seniority (UK as oldest country, then by date upon which the others became Dominions; this has been used before, but, as I said above, I don't have a source at hand just now). All I'd say against one is arranging them alphabetically means the UK would go last. With seniority, the UK goes first. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was seniority. I think that is an excellent way of handling the matter. And as the article is a biographical article, the dates matter, as events in the Queen's life. Not so much those realms which had gained independence before her coronation, maybe, but going by date order solves a lot of problems. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding and my proposal on the way forward was to 1. leave the last stable version (which I don't support), 2. put up all the proposals and narrow them down to just two or three, and 3. Hold a RFC with only the final two options (three if required). 4. Tweak the choice gaining the most support to incorporate all 6 points I listed above that people want mentioned to achieve consensus (ie incorporating all valid points or concerns brought fwd by all players). I think Pete did a fine job, particularly as we are not at the RFC stage yet, so I see no need to tell him that it was poorly done, particularly as he took the time and effort to put it all together on his own accord to help us out. trackratte (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If the result of this Rfc ends up being not to your liking. I hope you'll accept such a result, then back off & not filibuster. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Trackratte. I think the procedure you have outlined is an excellent way of moving forward. GoodDay, I do love you, but perhaps you could go and contemplate the beauty of the moon or the joy of the day for a few minutes before responding to others? A brief pause, no more, then say what you will. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with using seniority is that it resolves what has been identified as a problem for only one discussant, who prefers that any distinction made between the UK and other realms be "justified" by date, residence or some other discrete factor -- whereas most others here seem to concur that, even if only one factor is cited in the lede for the sake of conciseness, it is the fact of Elizabeth's overall greater role in the UK which calls for the change under consideration. That fact may, however, be noted in the lede without the reasons for the distinction being explicitly explained there -- I'm fine with just listing the UK first. But the lede should not raise yet more questions needing explanations, which is what ordering the 15 in any way save alphabetically does. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Shall we leave aside items such as governors-general, predominant place of residence, inclusion of the term "Commonwealth realms", and order of countries, then, and decide (by RfC, if necessary) between three most basic options:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

...

Upon her accession on 6 February 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service the following year was the first to be televised. From 1956 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some became republics. Today, in addition to the first four of the aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.;

and

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

...

Upon her accession on 6 February 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service the following year was the first to be televised. From 1956 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some became republics. Today, in addition to the first four of the aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.;

and

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other countries [possibly either list them here or in footnote] from various later dates; together, those 16 independent states are now known as the Commonwealth realms. She has also been Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England since her accession. Between then and 1992, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some became republics.

...

[No third paragraph; televising of coronation can either be worked in elsewhere in the lede or left out]

We can then look at adding in the aforementioned elements. My only concern is option one above is presently at a disadvantage without, say, mention of predominant place of residence, which is easily done and would make it better meet the wants of those who wish the opening to communicate Elizabeth's greater personal involvement with the UK. It can be done with the other two, as well, but, they already give the UK prominence by either singling it out or putting it first. This is a tricky business. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Of these options, since the first fails to distinguish her UK role, I can't support it. Nor the second option because although it lists the UK first, other realms are either ordered by date or omitted, raising more questions than the lede should allude to. The last option is acceptable if it includes the names of the other realms (for equity) and does so alphabetically (for simplicity). FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be recognised that people may well wish to take a "mix and match" approach, taking elements of the different options. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I found, when compiling a list of versions, that there was a whole bunch of "mixing and matching" going on. It was quite distracting to hunt down the precise (and often minor) differences as editors tweaked this and that. If we can decide on the major issues first, then we can work on minor tweaks. Things like whether queen or Queen is best, or where her main palace is situated, or the roles of governors-general, these are probably tweaks. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Please, let's add no more questions to be answered until we've addressed those already posed! FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The argument was & is - Queen of the United Kingdom and 15... or Queen of 16.... GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Very true. But perhaps there are ways of wording the lede so that all parties may feel reasonably happy with the result. This isn't supposed to be a test of who can reach higher up the urinal than anybody else - it is a way of presenting information in the best way possible. We are not so much a football match as a play. And there is certainly enough drama in our discourse. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I placed the 6 points in the section above to try and summarize what we all wanted to see included in the final lead. So, if I'm to understand correctly, we are saying we can remove point 3 (residence) and point 4 (governors general) for now. I would also suggest to remove title of Supreme Gov of CofE for now as well, as others have pointed out it fails to mention her role within Scotland, and is needlessly distracting us from the core issues. I would remove Commonwealth for now as well, as I think her role within it is non-contentious. So this would leave us with:

1. Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
2. All of her realms are distinct from, and co-equal with, the UK.
3. She is primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom.

If we can agree on the core points both "sides" want included (Queen of XX, 16 co-equal states, primary associated with UK), then it will focus the preliminary analysis of proposals, ie eliminating all those that don't directly portray the above three points. trackratte (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Refocusing As above-mentioned, I am not supporting, and see no need for, a re-write, beyond the simple change from the frozen version to one with "..queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states..." or very similar addition of a new sentence mentioning UK. But, if more than that is proposed and it includes a list, from a reader's point of view alphabetic is easier to understand, especially a longish list with unfamiliar names, unless the order of priority is expressly stated: something like "at the time of her accession she became queen of (n) countries, which, in order of (????) were P....., Q...., R....., S....(etc.)". As said above, if such a list places UK at the end, so be it: it is so in other articles; the reason (alphabetic) is self-evident, and it is entirely neutral as to precedence of any kind. It is not self-evident to the ordinary reader that Canada is named before Australia because of some, as yet unstated, "seniority", which, if it determines any official precedence should be cited. While I can see some sense in the rewrites proposed above, in the end they are little if any improvement on the present lead. If there is any new information to be introduced into the article, such as about residence or governors-general, let that be a separate exercise. At this stage of the discussion, we can see that first of all, the main issue remains as when it started: briefly, Queen of UK + 15, or Queen of 16. Once that is settled let us go on to consider how the lead can be trimmed, rather than expanded with new information which is better placed in the main body. Qexigator (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It struck me that if we order her realms in some non-obvious fashion, we'll get people coming along and reordering them in some fashion which seems more logical. Alphabetically, for example. I'm not sure there's a non-wordy way of making the ordering plain, and a lead sentence should be clear and straightforward. But I think we can now identify three candidate versions if we ignore some of the minor issues for the moment, and perhaps we should list those three as RfC options? --Pete (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Qex, Queen of "UK+15" is the whole reason why we're here, and we know it will be impossible to gain consensus around it. We also know that "Queen of 16" by itself is equally unworkable. So, it is not an either or proposition, as both have been proven to lead to consensus-failure. The underlying issue of "Queen +15" is point 3 above (primarily associated with the UK above all else), and the underlying issue with "Queen +16" is point 2 above (states co-equal with UK). The crux of the issue isn't which side is right (both are), but how do we state that the Queen is co-equally queen of 16 different states, while at the same time making it clear that Elizabeth II is most often associated with the UK?

Pete, you are absolutely correct, which is why, the more I think about it, I think we need to state something like "...queen of 16 states...most closely tied to the UK..." or something along those lines to have everyone's main concerns heard and incorporated. trackratte (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds promising and expediting. But please let's address the questions already raised before shifting to yet another line of focus and leaving editors unsure how to participate here effectively. Let's come back to this, swiftly. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, I do agree those are the three main points to be considered at this point. However, it's not simply her realms that are distinct and equal, Elizabeth's roles as queen of each are distinct and equal, as well. Also, the UK is one of her realms. I'd thus change 2 to "All of her realms and her positions as queen of each are distinct from and equal with one another" or "All of her realms are distinct from and equal with one another, as are her positions as queen of each." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A consensus for "UK+15" is possible. There's only 2 individuals vigorously opposing it. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC Candidates

Alright, looking over all of the proposals from the above section, all responses essentially broke down to Preferred (first choice), Acceptable (can probably live with it), and Oppose (deal breaker). The job wasn't helped as not everyone put a bold statement to preface their comments, but I tried to parse it as best as I could. I weighted the choices as 2 points for a Preferred, 1 point for a Acceptable, and -1 for an oppose (I also calculated for Preferred is +1, Acceptable is 0, and Oppose is -1, and the top 3 choices were the same under both systems)(also going off of just the most preferreds yeilds the same top 3 results as well). It came to the following 13 options presented:

Longstanding: 0 preferred/1 acceptable/6 oppose : -5

TFD: 2 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose : 4

QEXI: 0 preferred/2 acceptable/3 oppose: -1

QEXII: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose: 0

TRACKRATTE: 3 preferred/1 acceptable/5 oppose: 2

QEXIII: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/4 oppose: -1

MIES: 1 preferred/4 acceptable/3 oppose: 2

QEXIV: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose: 0

DRKIENAN: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose: 0

COLLECT: 1 preferred/1 acceptable/2 oppose: 0

Collect II: 1 preferred/0 acceptable/1 oppose: 0

GHMYRTLE: 0 preferred/2 acceptable/4 oppose: -2

DRKIERNAN2: 0 preferred/1 acceptable/2 oppose: -1

QEXREVISED: not enough data (adding in my !votes) Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I propose we move fwd with a simple binary option to ease discussion, particularly as they all essentially boil down to a single choice: 16 co-equals with UK as primary association, or UK + 15 lessers. Under all three wieghting systems TFD and TRACKRATTE were the top two, so I propose we move fwd with those, and tweak whichever one is chosen as the most suitable start-state for consensus building. In line with the discussion above on focusing on the 3 core points (leaving residency, governors-general, head of the commonwealth, and church of england to the tweaking stage) the proposed RfD choices would then be as follows:

Oppose We were not told this would be a vote at this stage - I have added my !votes now, and suggest we examine the issues behind the votes before holding a beauty contest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed RfC Candidates

1. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. ; or

2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.

trackratte (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Mies' proposal is now actually in second place) Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Most often associated with her role in within the United Kingdom" isn't verified; it isn't verifiable. You want to say something more like "she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom", something more quantifiable (she tours more places there, she opens parliament more often, grants royal assent, etc., things we know and can verify). The "q" in "Queen" should also be lower-case in 2 and upper-case in 1.

Aside from that, it seems you're proposing the RfC be about which of the above will best accommodate the remaining two of the three "core points". Those points should be spelled out clearly so that contributors to the RfC are aware they're a factor in the choice being made.

And is my proposed compromise (and removing repetition from the lede and reducing its length) disallowed now as an option because it came in second to a tied first place? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree on going forward with the proposed binary methodology. But also agree with comments that 2 is "not verifiable", and "the three core points should be spelled out".The MIES ("compromise") version would be better suited to consideration in the stage after. For the next (binary) stage perhaps 2 could be tweaked, so that it is to its own same effect in respect of core point 3 (primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom). Could we substitute "where she predominantly resides", borrowed from MIES, thus:

2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, although she <+>predominantly resides in<+>is most often associated with her role within the United Kingdom.

Qexigator (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As trackratte noted, residency should be left for "the tweaking stage" and I tend to agree. I think 2 just needs to be altered to say what I proposed above: "she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom". That meets "core point" 3, just as "of the United Kingdom and 15 other" does (or, is intended to; I don't think it really does) in option 1 immediately above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom" could be expanded in a verifiable manner. Agree about "of the United Kingdom and 15 other" in option 1. Qexigator (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Are the above 2 candidates, our final options? All along, my major concern has been the opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that the freeze is due to expire at the beginning of 3 October UTC, it would be helpful to suspend revisions of the first paragraph (2 sentences) for a further seven days, to 10 October, or until the RfC closes, whichever is the sooner. Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree wholeheartedly with Mies' proposed amendment. Also, Qex, I completely agree. Mies, currently not on a computer, could you make the necessary amendments to point 2 above directly? trackratte (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the system being proposed as it becomes a beauty contest not dealing with the issues actually raised. Collect (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In case it had been forgotten, "of 16" has been in the opener from at least 13 February 2006 [22] in one variant or another, while the article has undergone countless revisions. This should be mentioned in the RfC. Has some editor woken from a near-decade hibernation?What notable event makes a change necessary at this time: the longevity of the Queen's reign, overtaking Victoria? Some notable republican debate somewhere yet to be added to the article? This should be mentioned in the RfC. Qexigator (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The dissociation of the list from the first few lines[23] probably played a part. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt that editors have been losing track of the article's long-term and recent history, including the inadvisable switch of paragraphs 2 and 3 (13:53, 18 September 2015 [24]) If the proposed RfC is to make sense, before proceeding further the article should be reverted to as it was at 16:10, 14 September 2015[25] --Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

+ It has been the second paragraph from 6 June 2012[26], and is better there, whether the first continues with a version retaining "..16.." or is changed to another using "...15..." Qexigator (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, in the process of looking for something else, I came upon the last RfC on this matter. It asks essentially the same question as what's being proposed this time. The RfC preceding it was also on "reigning queen and head of state of 16 independent sovereign states". Between them, the basic subject—UK first or all equal—has been debated, either about the article title, opening sentence, or infobox, multiple times, as well as on many other occasions going back at least ten years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If we are having a binary choice of the two versions above ("UK+15"and "16"), my vote would be for UK+15. Elizabeth II's "queenship" is not equivalent over the sixteen realms, and this goes beyond where she lives or the number of church fetes opened. In the UK alone, her reign is direct; there is no vice-regal representation. That goes beyond a mere convenience to cater for the fact that she resides at an inconvenient distance; in Australia at least her powers are greatly diminished from those available to her in the UK where she has the full extent of the royal prerogative available. In Australia, the power to appoint ministers does not belong to the monarch, and other significant portions of the ancient royal prerogative have been given directly to the Governor-General. Other realms have different constitutional arrangements, but even if the Queen were somehow to retire to the sunny climes of Saint Kitts, where in theory she might be as much queen of both the UK and Saint Kitts as before, there would be an immense uproar. Would there be a need for a Governor-General to represent the absent monarch in the UK? What rights, powers and privileges would he or she have? Perhaps Samuel Weymouth Tapley Seaton could move from Springfield House to Buckingham Palace? It is ridiculous to contemplate such a prospect.

If we accept the notion that the Queen is equally queen over sixteen realms, then that is only true to a certain extent: that of the symbolic and ceremonial rather than the practical. It is a nonsense to so mislead our readers without any explanation. --Pete (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Aside from its factual inaccuracy, your final remark above is addressed by point 3 of the three "core points" set in the preceding section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This goes beyond representation of an absent monarch or where she spends most of her days. The nature of her monarchy is different in her different realms, and it goes directly to the role of the monarch in governance. We might say that Richard I and Elizabeth II had the same roles, but it would not be true, and it would go beyond the number or names of their realms. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with you (Skyring), as the UK doesn't have (or need) a governor general. Elizabeth II doesn't open the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc on an anual basis, as she does the UK parliament. Elizabeth II & her family do not reside outside of the UK, nor do they even rotate living in the other realms. Also, it's safe to assume that Elizabeth II's funeral & burial will take place in the UK. There's no mistake about it, the UK is unique among the Commonwealth realms & should be treated as thus, in this articles opening. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

On such points, being raised against the present "16..." first sentence. I see no contest. The question which has (I would now say) needlessly arisen following an earlier unnecesary switch of paragraphs in the lead, is the way in which the undisputed facts can be presented in the way most suited to the article. At first glance, it seemed to me that the changing from the longstanding "16..." to the recently mooted "15..." would be the better option.. But I now see that, for the purpose of the article, the longstanding "16..." as now placed in the currently frozen version, is the better option editorially considered, as comprehending the entirety of the article content, followed very soon after that, with sufficient expansion, while alongside the text we see the infobox with the label "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". There is nothing to show that this is likely to mislead readers. In fact, we are discussing what can be seen as essentially a non-issue. Qexigator (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We are writing a biographical article here. The Queen's job is an important aspect of her life. Her job in the UK is a very real and demanding one - something she spends a good deal of time on. Her jobs in other places, not so much.

Let us consider what she earns money from. She is very well paid for her job as Queen of the United Kingdom. She does not earn a cent for her supposedly equal jobs as monarch of various far-flung islands. Just a few perks and a free stay in the governor's mansion. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I shall have to disagree with your new observations, Qex. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is anything to show that what is there is likely to mislead readers, I would like to see it. Repetition of the assertion does not make it fact or probability. Qexigator (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If we say that she is Queen of sixteen realms without qualifying that statement in any way, then readers will incorrectly deduce that there is a significant equivalence. The statement may be true, but it is also misleading. It is like saying that "Lamborghini, Toyota, Mazda, Opel, Skoda, Seat, and Hyundai" are brands of cars driven in the UK. True, but one of these things is not like the others.[27] --Pete (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

readers will incorrectly deduce that there is a significant equivalence. Not at all. What basis is there for presuming such stupidity (outside Wikipedia)? Fact is, experience shows that most readers will already have a hazy idea of some sort of their own, and are unlikely to be inclined to make such a hasty deduction from those few opening words, and remain forever fixated by the false deduction of an editor's hyperbolical imagining. We compose these articles on the assumption that the inquirer will read on and see how the bare first sentence is developed and filled out, and they are aided with links, the lead summary, the table of contents, See alsos, annotations and, in the case of this and related articles, the colourful infobox right beside the lead, which has been carefully constructed to present an outline of some basic facts, which may be all that a reader is looking for at that time, and which also serves as a navigating aid by way of links. Encylopedically, the editorial aim is to let the opening sentence, in the context of the topic title (here, Elizabeth II) and the sentences that follow and the remainder of the lead, be as comprehensive of the article's content as possible. It so happens that after much editing and re-editing over the years, that was arrived at in the form of the present opening pargraph, in particular using the words: "...the queen of 16...". That is the reverse of either UK-centric or downplaying the independent statehood of any one of the 16 monarchies where the Queen now reigns, or the place in the scheme of things generally of the Queen herself or of any of the sovereign states. Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If we follow that reasoning, then the reader will be informed of the special significance of the UK by reading the lede and the full article. Fine. So what is the problem with not saying it in the first line? The "16 realms" line just grates like fingers down the wall of Westminster Abbey to anyone who knows something about the close relationship of the Queen and the UK, and her not-so-close relationship with (say) Bermuda. --Pete (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Having connections with both the places mentioned, and others, that is not so in my experience, but if any RS is shown to corroborate the contrary I would be happy to reconsider. I note that your comment accepts my point, but dislikes the effect. The point you have been advancing is well understood, and needs no reiteration so far as I am concerned. Let editors aspire to that sublime npov state residing above personal and private sentiments or affections. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other 12..., be included among the 'final' options. Though it's not my first choice, it's darn better then that Queen of 16.. eye sore ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The sovereign's role as Queen of Canada, Australia and New Zealand is far less significant than her role as Queen of the UK and only marginally more significant than her role as Queen of the other 12 realms. Your recommendation reads like "Queen of the UK, three other white countries and 12 third world countries." TFD (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The significance is that they were Dominions at the time of her accession. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what they tell the Commission of Racial Equality. TFD (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation isn't really relevant or helpful - the point is that there is a rational explanation for separating out those three, with the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We can easily put in a footnote explaining the ordering and requesting that it not be changed to alphabetical. This sort of thing is commonplace thoughout Wikipedia, where an official spelling is slightly odd or similar. --Pete (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My proposal was "Elizabeth II is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and of 12 other countries from various dates; together, those 16 independent states are known as the Commonwealth realms." GoodDay failed to include the dates, which demonstrate the division lies between four countries that Elizabeth became queen of simultaneously and the rest that she became queen of each at a different time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)