Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

RfC on opening sentence in lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Elizabeth II holds the title of queen of sixteen different nations. However she resides in the United Kingdom, and she is represented in her other realms by governors-general. The lede sentence of her biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which version is preferred?
The lede sentence of this biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which of the versions below best incorporates the following three criteria?

• 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.
• All of her realms are equal in status with, and her roles as queen of each legally distinct from, one another.
• She is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.

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. ; or

3. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries from various dates[b]; together, those 16 states are known as the Commonwealth realms.

Footnotes:
(Footnote a explains why the Queen's Birthday is celebrated on various dates, none of them the actual date.)
(Footnote b lists the 16 realms and explains their ordering by date.) --Pete (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment before responding The current version, at 11:04, 2 October 2015,[1] is 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..... "of 16" has been in the opener from at least 13 February 2006, in one variant or another, while the article has undergone countless revisions., until a change was made on 25 September[2], that was later reverted and frozen for three days. [3] Qexigator (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on comment before response - The current version has been around for a while, but there have been discussions for years about its need to change. It has been a source of edit warring for years. Hopefully we can end those discussions and edit wars now. NickCT (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A more honest statement is: over years, it has infrequently been the source of edit warring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Votes stand at: Option 1 = 10 supports, Option 2 = 4 supports, Option 3 = 2 supports

Option #1 is the most accurate, for various reasons I've already mentioned & should be implimented. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I absolutely oppose Option #2, for reasons already mentioned. PS - It reads more like the name of a card game. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I shall have to oppose Option #3, aswell. It's too wordy & seems to pander to over-exaggerated concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Option #1 Most concise. Most accurate. Most balanced. On another note, this option already gained a large majority of supporters in the section above. I don't know why we are RfCing this a second time. NickCT (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Of those three, and noting above "Comment on commnent": Oppose 3: It is too clumsy in trying to say too much, and each bit of information is spoiled. Nor could it be tweaked into something acceptable, if it contains "...and of 12 other..." Of 1 and 2, reading them in context as being followed by: "She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.(next paragraph) 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." Support 2, reading "...queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England./P/ 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...." but the words of ...most often personally involved with the United Kingdom... may need some tweaking, and a suitable footnote may allow some trimming. Oppose 1, but read with the next sentence and paragraph as above, would be intelligible and sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qexigator (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 October 2015 Support 1. For reason of content and "prose", given that this is a biographical article for "Elizabeth II". Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose 2. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose 3. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I'm curious as to how you feel Option 1 best expresses that "[a]ll of [Elizabeth's] realms are equal in status with, and her roles as queen of each legally distinct from, one another." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know your interest. I don't have anything to add at this stage to my comments, which can be found by searching on qexig , but you will have noticed that in the course of the discussion the balance for me has eventually tipped from 16 to UK+15. You may have seen my comment below "... UK +15 would be acceptable, if the choice is determined, not on the supposed effect on the mind of the ordinary readership, but instead on having an opener which is the more comprenhensive of the article content, and in line with the article heading "Elizabeth II", and with a sidelong look at the infobox...Given that this is a biographical article, ... the balance is tipped by the fact that while she was proclaimed in London as Queen of UK etc at her accession, the local governor-general made proclamation in each of the other 3 countries while the 12 now included in the 16 attained independence in her reign. "...and there is a case for arguing that "equality" is delusional when overstressed: the tradition, expression and responses relating to the monarchy and the monarch are not "equal" but distinctive among the people of each country, and shown formally in such ways as the making of proclamations, and, obviously, in oaths of office and allegiance, and there is an order of precedence by seniority of formation. If there is equality it could be in such matters as membership of the United Nations, but only the UK is a member of the Security Council. There must be very few who, in their daily lives, are at all fussed about this "equality" abstraction, but most will be interested in whether their own country's passport will get them where they want to go, and let them do and stay there as they desire." Finally, my surmise is that we can depend on the ordinary readership not being so dumb or stupid as to fail to get the gist of the article by reading the sentence in the context of what follows and of the article as a whole, so there is no problem which may be implied in the way you put that question. Qexigator (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC) + While, as far as I can see, nowhere in this biographical article about Elizabeth II is "equality" mentioned at all, the article content is compatible with the proposition of the equality of the 16, far as that is meaningful. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) As none of that has anything to do with point 2, it can be summed up as: "I've simply decided point 2 of the main points of debate as distilled by trackratte is irrelevant." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Your opinion is noted. Thank you for letting us know about it. Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Likewise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Option #1 per consensus attained over the preceding days. The lede should be concise and accurate. It should not be worded in order to avoid hurt feelings or used to needlessly promote equality among nations that aren't equal. That's what alphabetizing is for. --AntHerder (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Option #1 Gives proper weight to Queen's most notable role as Queen of the UK and is concise. TFD (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Option #1 is the only one which adequately & concisely asserts her unique association with the UK without unnecessarily raising other questions: Oppose #2: makes it sound as if the UK association were a mere matter of her preference, and Oppose #3: tries to say too much and looks arbitrary in its reference to her other realms. FactStraight (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Option #2 is factually accurate and NPOV, in short truly encyclopaedic. Option #1 is unacceptable and dismissive of "other realms" and belongs in a republican tract. Option #3 is confusing: remember WP:RF. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Of those three options, Option #1 gives the best overview. Option #2 is acceptable. Option #3 is over-complicated with detail. My preference would be to use #1 but drawing on #3 - "...the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 12 other independent countries." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Option 2 This has survived the test of time on this high traffic article and has been supported by at least two consecutive RfCs. It is the only one of the three that is both concise and totally neutral. WP:NPOV is a core policy that trumps WP:COMMONNAME (and especially misapplication and misreading of it), Canadian republican motive, and personal feelings (pov) about the "specialness" of the UK. If those opposed to Option 2 wish for the lede to impart that Elizabeth II is most often personally involved with the UK (an acceptable, verifiable fact), Option 1 fails to do so. There is no evident or verifiable reason for why the UK is separated from the rest of the realms; it leaves the unfamiliar reader to assume the UK is simply special by nature, the established relationship of the realms places the UK above the others as a leader, or Elizabeth is head of all the realms as Queen of the United Kingdom. That is contrary to the verifiable, 80+ year old international agreement of equality among the realms under the Crown (of which Elizabeth II is the personification) set by the Balfour Declaration in 1926. As the opening sentence is intended to communicate the most important characteristic of Elizabeth II, the aforementioned fact must be acknowledged; she is notable as a queen and she is queen equally of 16 independent states. Wikipedia should not be misleading readers; many already believe the non-British realms remain under the United Kingdom in some fashion precisely because Elizabeth II is queen of all of them. Since all the options require additional explanation to impart that Elizabeth is most often personally involved with the UK (perhaps already, at least partly, supplied in the second paragraph) and Option 1 is both weak and biased, I adamantly oppose Option 1. I can accept Option 3 as a compromise, since it at least separates the realms according to when Elizabeth became queen of each of her countries, rather than some unjustified declaration of the UK's supremacy. Elizabeth became queen of four countries simultaneously and queen of 12 more on a different date for each. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Option 1 seems acceptable; Option 3 is too wordy and unnecessary -- Hazhk (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Support Option 2. This option is not only concise, but is the compromise solution in that it takes into account the UK+15 side by indicating the direct involvment of Elizbeth II in the UK, but also the 16 realms side by treating all 16 co-equal states co-equally. It is also the most neutral of the three. trackratte (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Option 1. This option is predicated on a clearly UK-centric and therefore biased way of presenting the fact that Elizabeth II is the queen of 16 co-equal states. trackratte (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Can accept option 3. trackratte (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Option 1 as an accurate statement giving due weight to her main job, for which she is best known, receives a salary, and is her most common title. There is a thousand years of history behind the job. As Queen of (say) Tuvalu, her role is more of an honorary appointment - no salary, the job is performed by a representative, she rarely even visits. We discussed this question last in July 2014, where there was an even division of opinion. I have since changed my opinion and can no longer support this false impression of equality over sixteen different nations, when she is associated with the UK first and foremost. I also favour Option 3 as a good compromise. --Pete (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Minor point of fact: The Queen does not earn a salary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Point taken. Most of us could have a pretty ritzy lifestyle on her !salary, I think. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Actually the Crown Estate generates much more funds than are outlayed to provide for the Royal family (currently 15%), thereby making its statutory transfer to HM Treasury in 2012 a situation whereby the population of the UK actually makes money off the Crown. Secondly, the profits from the Crown Estate are not properly "public money" ("money that has been collected by the state, usually through taxation"). trackratte (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Nevertheless, in no other realm are we talking about a billion-dollar estate generating tens of millions of dollars in income each year. She's not doing it tough in the UK, but she'd be eating saltine crackers, ten cents a pound, in Tuvalu. --Pete (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Option #1 is my preferred option, as outlined in the earlier #Queen of 16 of the member states section. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Option #1. #1 is immediately understandable and concise. While I would argue that the longstanding version is also immediately understandable and concise, that option is not presented here because the discussion of the RfC candidates clearly showed it had lost consensus. #2 is not an improvement on the longstanding version: (1) it introduces unnecessarily an unfamiliar and unusual term (Commonwealth realms); (2) it introduces an additional clause at the end that appears to be exactly what it is: an additional clause tacked on as an afterthought. It reads messily and is a poor way to introduce the article and subject matter. The first sentence should introduce the subject in a simple, straightforward way; it shouldn't be used to define a different, barely-used term that doesn't need to be mentioned. #3 is over-complicated. It contains a parenthetical aside, a footnote, a clause set apart with parenthetical commas and an additional sentence after a semi-colon to explain something that the previous two options and the longstanding version explained in a simple "subject-verb-object" phrase. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Commonwealth" has been used for hundreds of years, in this particular context for most of the 20thC. "Realm" has been used in its current form since the 17thC and is the common term for the territory over which a monarch reigns. What therefore is either "unfamiliar" or "unusual"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Malaysia, Tonga, Lesotho and Swaziland are realms in the Commonwealth but they are not Commonwealth realms. It is the compound noun that is unusual and needs definition not the individual words. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Broadly agree with DrKiernan's comments, but there is another valid way of composing a simple sentence, thus: Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other 16 independent states. Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Perfectly good sentence. Of course if I was being awkward (what me?) - then is a "state" 1/50 of the country known as the USA or the summation of 3 countries as in the UK? ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC) What would a USA citizen or resident understand by "independent states", Mexico and Cuba or New Mexico and Alaska? But maybe the phrase should be "16 independent sovereign states" ? Qexigator (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, I don't really have a personal preference between #1, the longstanding or that "perfectly good" opening sentence. I think the POV issue can be argued either and both ways: in my view, it's essentially a personal choice, not a choice determined solely by the political/cultural leanings of the commentator, but a choice nevertheless. I can live with either "1+15" or "16"; my comments reflect my opinion of the options' prose and do not address the issues of balance or bias. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Yes. and in the course of the discussion below I am begiinning to find there is so little to choose between them that UK +15 would be acceptable, if the choice is determined, not on the supposed effect on the mind of the ordinary readership, but instead on having an opener which is the more comprenhensive of the article content, and in line with the article heading "Elizabeth II", and with a sidelong look at the infobox. But so far, I see too little to tip the balance from 16. Qexigator (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) + Given that this is a biographical article, perhaps (as others may have intimated) the balance is tipped by the fact that while she was proclaimed in London as Queen of UK etc at her accession, the local governor-general made proclamation in each of the other 3 countries while the 12 now included in the 16 attained independence in her reign, whatever other comings and goings there have been, details of which are somewhere in this or linked articles. Qexigator (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC) You've made your judgement based on prose. However, the RfC asks the judgement be made on which option best incorporates the three main concerns of editors involved in this dispute: Elizabeth II is queen of 16 countries, the countries and her place as queen of each are equal, and she is more often personally involved with the UK. Improvements to prose can be made later. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC) The RfC originally asked "Elizabeth II holds the title of queen of sixteen different nations. However she resides in the United Kingdom, and she is represented in her other realms by governors-general. The lede sentence of her biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which version is preferred?" It was changed after the RfC had started and after many editors had already commented on the original question. It's fine to change or discuss the heading before comments are underway, but it is bad practice to change it after responses are made. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC) In agreement with you, DrKiernan. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, it is; there should've been a preview of the RfC wording before the RfC was opened. The original opening didn't outline the actual issues in dispute (though, I'd think we who've been involved in this for days might've been aware of them). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I've notified those who commented already and don't seem to have been by this talk page since doing so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Prose? A protest too far, perhaps a variant of apophasis. Qexigator (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) My comment was based on this version. --AntHerder (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Agree that "Commonwealth Realm" is jargon and its use should be minimized. At least avoid it in the lead. When it is used it needs to be explained in text. Also, oppose saying "sovereign states." It is confusing because the article is about a sovereign, so we are saying she is sovereign of 16 sovereign states. And Alaska is indeed sovereign although it is not independent, which is why the Alaska secessionist party is called the Alaska Independence Party. It is sovereign in all areas that are not assigned to the federal government. TFD (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Time to close

Given that the dissension from which the RfC arose has resolved, the RfC is effectively closed, letting editing services proceed in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Kudos to Pete on a better looking RfC. ;-) NickCT (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Over the past week I've been trying to sort out RfC candidates. This is the RfC, as per the template and the heading and the listing on RfC noticeboards. Previous discussions have been around gauging support for various alternative wordings - we regular editors might be able to choose one from a dozen that differ only in minor details, but more eyes from outside always help, and boiling the dozen options down to two or three lets us focus on the essential. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a job well done, and still in progress, so that we can settle it cheerfully and allow such further improvements to be made as are contributed. Qexigator (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - and many others - for the insights and the thoughtful comments. Yes, there's a bit of tweaking to do, whichever wording we choose. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You da man, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to say thanks without criticism, but, I do have to point out that the opening speaks of where Elizabeth resides (neglecting the fact she resides many places, just mostly in the UK) and governors-general, but, none of the options make reference to either of those matters. The opening doesn't explain what most editors opposed to the present opening said they were concerned about: Elizabeth is most often personally involved with the UK. The options therefore aren't being judged on how well they impart that information. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I put it as even-handedly as I could, but Mies, you are welcome to make it even more so. I am by no means as perfect an editor, or a human being as I could be, and we can all fill in for each other's shortcomings with our strengths. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to pick on anyone's imperfection. I'm merely pointing out a disjoint between the opening of the RfC and the options the RfC focuses on. Would you (or anyone) object to

The lede sentence of this biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which of the versions below best incorporates the following three criteria?

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 equal with one another.

3. She is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.

That incorporates the three points distilled by trackratte from all the earlier discussion and to which nobody objected. Points 1 and 3 simply replace the first two sentences of the present RfC opening. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As per your wording, except I've changed the numbers to bullet points to remove a source of confusion and inserted "legally" ahead of equal in case some pedantic fellow wants to talk about population or GDP or land area. (Disneyland is bigger than Tuvalu, imagine that!) --Pete (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have made a minor (I think) tweak to point 2 to use the wording of the Balfour Declaration itself ("equal in status") and use "legally distinct" for Elizabeth's place as queen, since the Balfour Declaration is an international agreement, not actually law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that I must object to this post-!vote rewording. When evaluating the points to be considered in wording the RFC, I agreed with and understood myself to be accepting point 3 as "She is primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom." But I now see that wording was objected to (as "unverifiable", a point with which I also don't agree, since the lede may -- without footnotes -- summarize points documented subsequently in the article's body, and I have consistently pointed out in this discussion that it is not Elizabeth II's "residence" or any other single discrete fact which distinguishes her connection to the UK from that in her other realms, but as Pete elsewhere put it, 1,000 years of history which has shaped that role into a unique one and is documented throughout her bio and those of her ancestors) and was unilaterally changed to "She is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom", a minimialisation to which I've objected as implying that the difference in her degree of connection to the UK from other realms is merely due to her own preferences or to convenience (i.e., where she "happens" to "predominantly" reside) rather than to history, current function and public expectation intrinsic to the positions she holds. In our advocacy, let's take care not to conflate the issue here, which is a dispute about the degree to which the article is obliged to emphasize that her queenships are equal vs acknowledgement that they are not the same. FactStraight (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is reason to make objection to the unilateral change, and there is a case for arguing that "equality" is delusional when overstressed: the tradition, expression and responses relating to the monarchy and the monarch are not "equal" but distinctive among the people of each country, and shown formally in such ways as the making of proclamations, and, obviously, in oaths of office and allegiance, and there is an order of precedence by seniority of formation. If there is equality it could be in such matters as membership of the United Nations, but only the UK is a member of the Security Council. There must be very few who, in their daily lives, are at all fussed about this "equality" abstraction, but most will be interested in whether their own country's passport will get them where they want to go, and let them do and stay there as they desire. So far as the Queen herself is concerned, in her relations with the governments and the people of the countries, she evidently takes care to avoid overt favouritism, like a parent with numerous children. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If my mother had kept my older sister and farmed the rest of us out to various different locations under the care of foster mothers who changed every few years, I might have had some comments to make about favouritism! To be frank, I think this whole "Monarchy of Belize/Papua New Guinea/Canada/etc." thing is a confection. There is the British monarchy, and while Papua New Guinea might decide to become a republic - perhaps they have already; their executive arrangements can get chaotic from time to time - without the British monarch feeling any effect, the reverse is not true. If the UK decided to ditch the monarchy, that's it for her other realms as well. This notion of equality is a confection, and there is no Canadian monarchy or Australian monarchy or Tuvaluvian monarchy except for the fantasy that Wikipedia promotes. --Pete (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you still holding onto those canadrs? Well, it's a good think there's a difference between what you think and what's reliably sourced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Canarda already thinks in the matter of succession that whoever is the British monarch is automatically the Canadian monarch. Seriously, you think - does anyone think - that if the UK decides to become a republic, then the Queen will move to Ottawa and be Queen of Canada? Or remain in the UK and be Queen of Australia, Tuvalu etc. while not being Queen of the UK? It's ridiculous. The UK is the key. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The three options on which we are !voting have not changed at all. Mies made an objection to my "brief, neutral statement" before the three options are listed, and I decided to incorporate his suggested text, leaving mine as struck-out. I think both versions are about as neutral as each other, but there are two reasons why I went with Mies' wording.

1. The actual options for the lede sentence upon which we are !voting have not changed, and
2. I don't want Mies to complain after the fact that the wording was skewed. Very little happens in this particular little corner of Wikipedia without either Mies' approval or anguished and dogged resistance. I would like him to feel that the process is as open and transparent as possible. Sentence options 1 and 2 are those which emerged from a far longer list as being the binary choices, and option 3 is Mies' own wording, which I think is an excellent compromise.

I guess, after this RfC is closed, we can argue about the effect of changing the brief, neutral wording mid-stream, and maybe those on the losing side can call for another one, but there is another option available to all who have already !voted - simply reëvaluate your original !vote and modify it if you think modification is needed. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I know (because you said so) you get off on teasing me. But, if you're going to persist, you really shouldn't also be a hypocrite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not teasing you here, Mies. I'd like you to have as much input into this as possible so you can't complain afterwards. If that means we get your preferred version rather than mine, so be it. --Pete (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the options offered us for !vote have not changed, but as I was invited to respond to this notification about the change in the 3 rationales undergirding the RfC, I felt obliged to do so since the expectation was expressed that the change might alter the !vote, mine or others, and I therefore wished to clarify the muddle which led to a change I did not notice at the time. On the point at hand, I affirm my continued support for Option #1. FactStraight (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The change hardly affects most of the choices and preferences already made, or the likely outcome, but why we should be expected to re-check to gratify one rather than another editor I fail to see. The clearest way of inviting comment would have been for either "...is Queen of 16 independent states." or "...is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states.", which, as a number of participants have pointed out, is the main issue, with possibly a subsidiary pair or set of options for or against adding in the same or adjacent sentence something about the Queen residing and/or working predominantly in UK. For my part, after seeing responses, comments and the Discussion below, I will cancel my previous response and instead support option 1 and oppose the other two. Qexigator (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view. Since one of the editors has brought up neutrality, I would like to state that it does not require us to give equal weight to every state over which the sovereign is queen, but "to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject". There is no doubt that reliable sources spend far more time discussing her role as Queen of the UK than of her other independent realms. Even in Canada, her largest realm and most populous after the UK, where the Queen is styled "of the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.]", news sources report more on her UK than Canadian role. In addition, the monarch is queen of 15 British Overseas Territories, 10 Canadian provinces, 6 Australian states, and various states associated with or dependent on Australia and NZ. But no one suggests they be afforded equal weight. TFD (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are three red herrings: Nobody suggested the lede shouldn't communicate that Elizabeth II has more frequently acted in her role as Queen of the UK. Common mistakes don't make the mistake a fact. The lede presently talks about member states of the Commonwealth of Nations and it and all three proposals above use the words "independent countries". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The sovereign is overwhelming better known in reliable sources (even in Canada) as the Queen of the UK and in keeping with policy we should state that she is Queen of the UK before mentioning any other role. That is not a red herring, it is policy. And of course when reliable sources start referring to her as Queen of New Zealand or wherever more often than Queen of the UK then we can put that nation first. TFD (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to? trackratte (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You spoke of "weight appropriate", not what gets mentioned first. You've shifted the goalposts from your earlier comment. (And, it's self evident that being queen of 16 countries has more weight than being queen of one.)

I'm with trackratte in wondering what policy requires the article to state Elizabeth is Queen of the UK before mentioning any other role. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 3:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

See my comments at 23:12, 2 October 2015.[4] The policy is "Balancing aspects", which is part of "Neutral point of view": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but 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." TFD (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That policy doesn't require the article to state Elizabeth is Queen of the UK before mentioning any other role. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You're quite correct TFD, reliable sources do indeed recognize Elizabeth II most closely associated with the United Kingdom'. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So far I see zero sources to support either claim about the counter-intuitive (and presumptuous) supposition that there is a serious likelihood of any of the world-wide English-reading population of any country in or outside the Commonwealth (in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa or the south-eastern hemishpere/Pacific Ocean), for whose information this article is composed, being misled either way if the words used adopt the "UK + 15" option " (which may have most support in the RfC) or the "!6 (including UK)". I see such contentions as red herrings, which have attained a prominence in the bill of fare out of proportion to a balanced diet. But I do not see as a red herring TFD's comment that There is no doubt that reliable sources spend far more time discussing her role as Queen of the UK than of her other independent realms. Even in Canada, her largest realm ... A recent addition to the article mentions the length of the Queen's reign exceeding Victoria's[5] (now in the lead's 4th paragraph) and the citation in section "Diamond Jubilee and beyond" is to the Canadian Governor General's website, which announces an event "in celebration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II becoming the longest-reigning sovereign in Canada’s modern era....To mark the time when Her Majesty will become the longest-reigning monarch in our country’s recent history..." is an opportunity (for Canadians) "to celebrate Her Majesty’s remarkable work and outstanding dedication, as well as the heartfelt connection she has had to Canada throughout her incredible reign" and " in celebration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II becoming the longest-reigning sovereign in Canada’s modern era." That seems tactfully to avoid words which a polemicist might claim leant one way or the other. If the Canadian Governor General can do it, Wikipedia should not do otherwise, but nor should we make untested and unverified assumptions about the dumbness of the readership. Qexigator (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

moved and corrected after wifi botch. Qexigator (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In the past, the 1931 (note the year) Statues of Westerminister were brought up. It got me wondering. Why haven't the very few here pushing for 16, not making such a push at the openings of George V, Edward VIII & George VI articles? GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just curious aswell. When Elizabeth II passes on, will she be chopped up into 16 pieces, with each piece buried in a realm? Will Charles hold 16 coronations, each held in a realm? Will the roayl family begin living in each realm on a rotational plan? etc etc. Hypothetical questions to be sure, but something to ponder about, when considering this article's opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Some things about the British monarchy and monarchs are yet more curious, but just now they have even less to do with the content of the lead or the article as a whole, and are of less concern here than sabotage of the RfC would be. Qexigator (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Qexigator, the Canadian source used is Maclean's, Canada's foremost news magazine. In the title it says, "Queen Elizabeth II will become the longest-reigning British monarch ever." In the body it says, "the longest-reigning British monarch in history." There is no mention of her role as Queen of Canada, in fact no mention of Canada at all, although there is an indirect reference: Victoria (the previous record-holder) did not want "Empire-wide celebrations", and neither does the current monarch.

The Canadian governor-general's website of course emphasizes her Canadian role, and some reliable sources will. But the overwhelming majority do not.

GoodDay, see WP:BEANS.

TFD (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just confounded TFD, as to how a few (very few) individuals would filibuster to try & keep out "Queen of the United Kingdom" from this article's opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a position of the Monarchist League of Canada. In order to defend retention they claim that it is a Canadian institution distinct from the British institution. Following obiter dicta from Lord Denning in 1982, more or less, they hold that a separate Canadian Crown was created in 1931, although current legal theory rejects Denning's opinion. So aboriginals, French Canadians, Irish Catholics and descendants of non-UK immigrants should accept it along with other Canadian institutions. TFD (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

TFD: to your knowledge, is that mentioned in this or any other article? Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. It would be useful though in the League's article to explain their arguments for continuing the Canadian monarchy, which they present on their website. Even the Debate on the monarchy in Canada does not actually state any arguments. The League's current views are well explained on its website and the views on divisibility of the Crown which they formerly presented and which at least one editor still argues can be found in "The Emergence Of A Canadian Monarchy: 1867-1953", which they published in 2003. TFD (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to convince us that the divisibility of the Crown is a sham? My, you'd best tell all the governments the Perth Agreement was a total waste of time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And what does constitutional debate in Canada have to do with the opening sentence to the Elizabeth II article? trackratte (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Which it appears that the Canadian government holds that whoever is the British monarch is automatically the Canadian monarch. As opposed to every other realm. Refreshing in their honesty. --Pete (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not opposed to every other realm and you're apparently not aware that position is being reviewed by the courts as unconstitutional. So, you may want to hold off on popping your champagne.

Also: Off topic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Miesianical, you are well aware after many postings that I have never said the divisibility of the Crown is a sham. In fact your derisive comments above ("Ah, I was waiting for you to trot your old favourite out." - 21:25, 28 September 2015) are clear evidence. And the "favourite out" is "But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible," What part of that statement do you read to say the Crown is indivisible? You are imparting to me that your arguments are so weak you need to misrepresent other editor's comments.

Agree the constitutional issue is irrelevant to the lead. But that is the basis of your argument - all realms are constitutionally equal, therefore the lead should not give precedence to any one. It is a tempting distraction to argue the point, but ultimately the issue has to be determined by policy, in this case weight, which is about not the relevant importance of each country, but about the relative weight provided by reliable sources to the sovereign's activities related to her various offices.

18:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's me who's misrepresenting arguments. These are your words: "[F]rom Lord Denning in 1982, more or less, they hold that a separate Canadian Crown was created in 1931, although current legal theory rejects Denning's opinion." You said the league holds that stance not because it has grounds in fact, but because it can be used by the league "to defend retention [by claiming] that it is a Canadian institution distinct from the British institution... So aboriginals, French Canadians, Irish Catholics and descendants of non-UK immigrants should accept it along with other Canadian institutions." Sorry, but that does not come across as though you believe the league's position; you present it as though it's propaganda contrary to the mysterious "current legal theory" that rejects a separate Canadian Crown. If you don't believe there exists a Canadian Crown, it follows you don't believe in the divisibility of the international crown. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Miesianicial, I have presented Kerr's opinion, which was later accepted by the Lords of Appeal, many times. "The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867."

IOW the Canadian Crown was not "created in 1931," because it already existed "by 1867."

Sorry if you think my representation of the League's position makes it sound like propaganda. The reality is that there are different views whether (culturally at least) the monarchy is British or Canadian. The League defends its Canadianness. However, no matter how important this debate is to Canada, it is little significance to this article.

TFD (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, as long as we agree on that. But I think we are misunderstanding each other here, the equality piece isn't grounded in the Canadian constitution and has nothing to do with precedence (precedence has nothing to do with importance). It is entirely due to the fact that that of the 16 states, one is not 'more of a country' than another or 'more important' than another in terms of the role it its sovereign, but that the queen is co-equally the sovereign of 16 independent states (you are either the queen of a state or you are not, you cannot be more queen in one and less queen in another). Secondly, the equality of states more generally speaking is a matter of normative international law, and not one of the Canadian constitution. So, the Canadian constitution is only relevant to the lede in terms of making it about 16 states instead of 15. trackratte (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has been saying that the UK is better, greater, etc etc. The argument is -- the Queen is associated the most with the UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that the UK is not better or greater than the others, but that Elizabeth II is actually queen of 16 equal states but is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom? trackratte (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is the realm that is the most associated with Elizabeth II. She lives there, was crowned there, her family lives there, they'll all likely be buried there. The UK doesn't have (or need) a governor general. All these facts, make it necessary for the opening sentence to read Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..... GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that was a yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other... is best for the opening sentence, Mies :) GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

TFD: thank you for replying to my question with that information. I see it has attracted some attacking comment, which may explain in part the prolongation of the RfC, which is being conducted in a way, which, if well-meaning, has attracted adverse comment and may not be doing anything useful in the attempt to arrive at an improvement on the current version. Qexigator (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Current RfC Summary as of 4 Oct

In looking at the 3 core consensus points listed as the goal of the RfC compared to the three RfC candidates:

Option 1 covers point 1: 50%, point 2: 0%, point 3, 100%.

Option 2 covers point 1: 50%, point 2: 100%, point 3, 100%.

Option 3 covers point 1: 75%, point 2: 50%, point 3, 100%.

(all three options are 100% factually accurate)

To summarize the votes: once again somewhat problematic as we are presented with a trinary choice which voters essentially ranked with different variations and words to express support, weak support, weak oppose, and oppose. Subsequently, I just classed all support (weak or not) under "support", and all else as opposed.

Option #1: 11 support;

Option #2: 4 support; and

Option #3: 2 support.

Subsequently, at this stage option 1 is clearly the preferred option with option 2 having 36% of that support.

Looking above, option 1 makes it impossible to gain consensus ("agreement among all the people involved", or "group solidarity") since it completely neglects core point 2. Option 2 is too heavily opposed to ever generate consensus. Option 3 covers all three core points, although perhaps imperfectly (which would explain why everyone gravitated to the binary choices of 1 or 2 since why compromise if your preferred choice is there?). Perhaps it is time to draw on Ghmyrtle's suggestion/preference and "to use #1 but drawing on #3".

This would represent a change from "...is queen of 16 of the 53 member states..." (current) to "is queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states." This takes option #1 ("queen of the United Kingdom"), half takes option #2 (equality), and simplifies and strips down the prose of #3. Thus, as I understand the problem with the current lede ("16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations.") is that it doesn't say "queen of the United Kingdom", and the problem with just "queen of the United Kingdom" is that it cuts out the other 15 states (and regardless of size of the other states she is still queen of them, a fact which is personally important to her and readily verifiable). Thus, as always, the only hope of achieving consensus is to blend both points, ie have "queen of the United Kingdom" instead of "16 of the 53" while at the same time mentioning the other 15 not simply as 'the other [lesser/not important] 15'.

Blended solution for further tweaking:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states. trackratte (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Result of side-bar poll is no-consensus and is thus withdrawn, below still useful for discussion. trackratte (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support In the (apparently unlikely) event that this compromise wins the hearts of all those !voting in the current RfC. Pete (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support (add my own vote for ease of tallying). trackratte (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suffers the exact same balance/bias issues as the other two options: making the predominantly black countries inferior and giving the four most populous/internationally important ones a greater prominence that is not necessarily justified. Also mildly oppose this constant hijacking of the RfC process, which appears designed to either steer it or sabotage it. DrKiernan (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The only way to resolve the issue of "making the predominantly black countries inferior" is to either list them in the lede, or place them on equal footing with the UK. trackratte (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with DrKiernan. TFD (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Object: this should be withdrawn for reason moved by Trackratte to discussion below. Also, agree with TFD and DrKiernan. Qexigator (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, well you folks already know my reasons. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, let's keep our eyes on the prize by making only the distinction which is driving this RfC: UK+15. Adding in some but not all the other 15 muddies the waters, so name none or name all alphabetically. FactStraight (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"so name none or name all alphabetically" Exactly right, which would either preclude the naming of the UK, or it would mean naming all 16 alphabetically. Listing none is problematic we really must mention her role as queen in the lede, but refering to how she is queen of 16 independent states would be much less clumsy than listing them all out, particularly as this is already done in the infobox. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe FS means - name none after the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. FactStraight (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion

If possible, please leave comments here, and above simply put "support" or "oppose" to keep things simple, keeping in mind what you are supporting or opposing is the principle not the exact phrasing. Tweaking can be done as part of this conversation. trackratte (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Objection Please withdraw this "blend" which combines the faults of all and merits of none of the 3 options which were:

Option 1 ... is the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states.

Option 2. ...is queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.

Option 3. .... is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries from various dates[b]; together, those 16 states are known as the Commonwealth realms.

Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what not to do. This is not a poll or a vote. Supports and opposes should be backed up with rationales not just tallied up. DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This is to "identify common ground, and attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart" (WP:RFC). There is nothing to withdraw as it is within the RfC process, ie drawing editors towards common ground to build consensus. You're right, any opinions should be backed up with rationale, which is what this section is for. When we mix in long drawn out conversations with the "votes" it becomes very troublesome to follow who wants what, and when (particularly when people change their minds and then things can become even more confusing). And yes Wikipedia is not a democracy obviously, the "votes" piece is to see how much interest there is in going towards this "common ground" in a simple and clear way. trackratte (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And to respond to your rationale above, how does "making the predominantly black countries inferior and giving the [one] most populous/internationally important one a greater prominence" help anything?trackratte (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On October 1st, the section entitled RfC Candidates was still open and users were still commenting there, since then we have had two different RfC questions in the formal RfC section, and now we appear to have a fourth separate RfC section opening here, all covering essentially the same topic or asking much the same question. RfCs typically last 30 days; they've been four opened or closed here in as many days. The confusion is being caused by the multiple different discussions. I already made an attempt to simplify it by collapsing two earlier sections. Creating yet another section on top of the existing half-dozen to ask the same question in a slightly different way as before is not helping. DrKiernan (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is only one RfC, this is a sub-section within the RfC as you can see in the list order (RfC being 8, this section being 8.2 or the second sub-section within the RfC), and is a side-bar to the main conversation. What has added confusion is that someone jumped the gun in starting the RfC before we had established how it would be phrased, and what the candidates would be (which was the goal of the "RFC Candidates" section which was essentially a pre-RFC). This premature start led us having to change what the RfC was even asking after voting and discussions had already begun. It also proposes three candidates instead of two, leading everyone to select the one they actually prefer while actively opposing the third (compromise) solution, because everyone will naturally select what they are 100% happy with vice what they are only 50% happy with, thus short-circuiting the consensus building portion of the follow on discussion, since any work towards compromise (and thus consensus building) has been torpedoed through built-in rejection of the "third way" within the RfC. This is simply an attempt to restore focus on the "common ground" between everyone (two of the three core points), and re-start actual compromise rather than battleground tactics. Which is to say one side wants "queen of the UK" as the only title, and the other wants complete equality "queen of 16 independent states", the only way to achieve true consensus is 'queen of UK and' or 'queen of 16 (UK centric)'. Any other option, as far as I can see, will result in maintained opposition and simply be a majority over minority vote, which is not consensus ("consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution."WP:STRAW) but simple voting. trackratte (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, it is becoming clear that many here are treating this as a popularity contest: whichever wins the most votes goes in the article. It's entirely contrary to WP:DEM and, as you note, an evasion of consensus building. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We want to keep the first sentence of the lead concise. We can list all the CRs at the end of the lead or in a separate section. Listing the white CRs makes it appear they are more important. But Jamaica has almost the same population as NZ while Barbados is the oldest realm and at one time the most important. TFD (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede follows the same order as the infobox, where Barbados is listed in the infobox as 1966, and we've already gone through this when someone added a note earlier explaining the precedence of the states included in the infobox. By that logic the ordering in the infobox will have to change to avoid being "racist", which I fail to see how ordering these states chronologically is any more "racist" than alphabetical. Furthermore, by that same logic listing the UK by itself and relegating the rest of the "predominantly black 15 nations" as an afterthought in the lede would be equally racist. If the requirement is simply to have a "white country" (whatever that means, Canada is not a "white country" but a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural one which is Constitutionally entrenched) then drop NZ and have "and 13 other independent states". trackratte (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The above comment by trackratte shows so little grasp of the objections it purports to answer as to suggest that it would be better if s/he recused on this one, to avoid further muddle, of which we have had enough. Qexigator (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has responded to the question of how removing all countries from mention except for the UK repairs the relegation of "black countries" which both TFD and Kiernan brought up as part of their reasoning underlying objection. trackratte (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, it is better to backtrack some way to see where one had gone offtrack, instead of demanding that all follow along the same track one had mistakenly proposed. Qexigator (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that addressed to me or TFD or Kiernan? I'm certainly not the one who brought up "making the predominantly black countries inferior", I'm the one who would like an explanation on why such a disgusting sentiment is being brought forward, and now that it's been tabled, how those advocating the point intend to resolve it. trackratte (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's been tabled, as you acknowledge, then it need not be further "resolved". Further focus on it seems dilatory. FactStraight (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

FactStraight Tabled means "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting", so I meant now that it's been put forward for consideration, it needs to be resolved. And in having to look up the quoted definition, I've realised that "tabled" has a different meaning in American English: "postpone consideration of", so I can now see the confusion. How funny, I never knew there was a different meaning in the U.S. for that, learn something new every day. In any event this unhappy tangent has been suitably overcome by events as to be considered adequately resolved in my books. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you have shown an aptitude to mishandle this. You may not be aware that the slur on others in that last comment is quite out of order. Qexigator (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

My above comment is entirely fact: 1. I did not bring it up, and 2. I would like an explanation on how the point will be resolved.

What is slanderous is stating that my proposal is racist (and by implication all of the proposals within the RfC). Either the point which was brought up by TFD and Kiernan is valid (in which case we must resolve it), or it was attempt to portray the proposal(s) as racist (insinuating assumptions about the proposers, in which case apologies should be made). I assume it was the former and no ill-intent was desired, in which case it is a valid point of consideration and must be resolved, and therefore my comment remains standing, how is the point to be resolved? trackratte (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the fundamental change driving this RfC is acknowledging Elizabeth's unique association with the UK, that association alone has sustained momentum in this discussion to merit mention in the lede (balanced with reference to the equality of realms, i.e. "equal but not the same"), whereas we have tended toward gradual agreement not to alter the lede for other purposes in this RfC. Thus that narrow focus mitigates a taint of racism insofar as it reflects that only that association is salient enough for the lede: other factors which may evoke that taint (e.g. identifying realms by seniority of association with Elizabeth) are disposable distractions. FactStraight (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And that spat is exactly the reason to treat all co-equal realms identically. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Have faith in our fellow editors. This Rfc has been quite civil :) GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to carry on like porkchops to have a good time! Apart from the entertainment value, I'm enjoying this. We've pretty much explored every combination of words and concepts that we could apply to the lede, and we've explored some interesting aspects. The "black and white" differentiation of the realms, for example. I don't think it is possible to find any simple and elegant way of describing precisely how Elizabeth II is a monarch in so many ways to so many people, but what I'm seeing is that every one of us has noted in some way that the UK holds a special place in her life. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just my observation: It appears that ...UK + 15... is the preferred version. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, the reason we mention the UK is weight, the sovereign's role as Queen of the UK has far greater coverage than all other realms put together. The reason we place the realms in sequence is that that is official protocol. But what reason is there to stop at CR-4 (NZ), rather CR-5 (Jamaica) or CR-6 (Barbados)? I note that Canada is 74% white, while Jamaica is 1% white; Barbados, 3%. In fact the first four CRs are often referred to as the "Old Commonwealth" and before it was politically incorrect as the "White Commonwealth." TFD (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And what reason is there to stop at CR-1 (UK)? I note that the UK is 87% white, while Canada is only 76% white, New Zealand only around 70% white, and the Bahamas only 15% white. Refusing to accord the co-equal sovereign of these states equal footing based on these countries' "whiteness", or membership to some supposed "Old Commonwealth", or "White Commonwealth" are all equally unacceptable.

Coverage is a strawman, the quantity of verifiable sources in this case is a function of the UK's size and international presence, and nothing to do with the function of the office of sovereign itself. trackratte (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I offered up a perfectly viable opening sentence that both used the exact phrase "queen regnant of the United Kingdom" as the first words stating what Elizabeth II is and made clear the division between the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and the remaining 12 realms was according to the date of Elizabeth II's accession as queen of each country: four at the same time and 12 each on a different date. You didn't indicate either that you accepted it or outright rejected it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It has the issue I just explained (White Commonwealth nations given priority over Non-white Commonwealth). Also, there is jargon "queen regnant", "Commonwealth Realm"). And it is inaccurate to say she is queen of the independent countries from various dates - she was queen before they were independent. TFD (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I just wrote "the division between the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and the remaining 12 realms was according to the date of Elizabeth II's accession as queen of each country: four at the same time and 12 each on a different date." My option includes "since 6 February 1952" and "from various dates"; trackratte's (now struck) proposal just above does (did) not. There's no confusing date and race. So, race is now a red herring.

The term "Commonwealth realm" doesn't have to be there. Nor does "queen regnant" But, it's pretty obvious you're going to want some indication that Elizabeth II isn't queen because she's the wife of a king. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We manage to describe Margrethe II without using the phrase "queen regnant" at all. Well, we kind of do. The list of categories includes her as a member of the "Queens regnant" category, alongside the "Tolkien illustrators" cat, which is pretty cool. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tolkien illustrator. What an incredibly odd fact of the day to come up ha. Who knew. trackratte (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But, in that way, she isn't described much differently than is Queen Letizia of Spain. The latter just has the "as the wife of..." attached.

Anyway, minor matter at this point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, I agree that race is a red herring from our point of view, however I don't think that the perception issue is an invalid one, as after all it formed part of three editors' reasonings, so I wouldn't want to discount it out of hand. For someone to understand the reasoning underlying the decision to name some states in exclusion of the others would require them to deduce it by themselves by reading other parts of the article, or would require a second foot note. Two explanatory notes in the first sentence seems to be a red-flag, but could certainly work. And I would hesitate to say it was my proposal, it was an amalgam hoping that it would be at least palatable to all (with the understanding it would be "liked" by no one, including myself). trackratte (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant race is a red herring now, in the course of my present discourse with TFD, since I twice pointed out my option is pretty clear on how the realms are divided in it. There's no ambiguity as there is in "queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and 12 other countries" and "queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries"; with both, one is left wondering why one or some countries have been separated from the others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Kiernan's editing of the main page lead paragraph just now actually helps clarify that whole bit quite nicely I think. The way that paragraph is worded now, it makes any mention of specific countries or the Commonwealth redundant in the lede sentence I think. trackratte (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, I would join the second paragraph to the end of the first, but, otherwise, to me, the lede spells things out very clearly and more concisely than before. It "divides" the realms in essentially the same way as my proposed option, but, is better in that it names the 12 of her current realms she became queen of after 1952. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Poll: Less Polling, more consensus?

Honestly, I think the way the first paragraph is worded now on the main page, all three proposals are redundant as the first paragraph states her role within the Commonwealth, and lists every single country in a very clear and fair way. Saying she is "queen of the UK +15 others" is redundant in that it says 'queen of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, etc, etc, all listed out just one line down. Option 2 is redundant as the UK is already listed first within the paragraph now. Option 3 is redundant for the same reason as option 1. Why not just have a minor tweak to the now current mainspace version:

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of 16 independent states. Since her accession on 6 February 1952, she has been Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of four independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom (where she is most directly involved), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. From their dates of independence, she is also 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." (this is copy and pasted from the current main page with "of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations" replaced with "independent states", and the addition of "where she is most directly involved")

It's a very minor tweak to what is now currently on the main page, but like I said, piling anything more than queen of 16 states seems redundant, as the UK is already there first, no need for "15 others" or "12 others" as they're all already listed in a clearly articulated order, no need for Commonwealth as its already there.

If we really must highlight the UK further than being listed first, we can insert put something like "...Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom (where she is most directly involved), Canada, Au..." into the current paragraph as above. It seems to me everyone's concerns are more than adequately covered (1. queen of all 16 states (they're all listed), 2. primary involvement in UK (UK listed first and explicitly mentioned) 3. equality of states (all listed equally and fairly)). trackratte (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

UK+15 appears to be the over-whelming favourite & therefore I recommend it should be implimented. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Counting votes from several conversations up is missing the point. trackratte (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring what many have been posting, over these last few days. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to direct to the Disruptive Editing policy, or are you actually accusing me of disruptively editing a talk page because you don't always agree with my comments? trackratte (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Trackratte, I removed the link as it was too harsh. But again, you do seem to be ignoring what many have been posting (noting the opening of this new sub-section as an example) over these last few days. PS: I'll let others judge this for themselves, of course. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I was just making sure, and your apology is not necessary (although greatly appreciated), and I can see how from your perspective I seem to be ignoring the 11:4 vote, although I can assure you I'm not, I think we are not on the same page as to what consensus is, and that's fine. Also, this "sub-sub" section is just a continuation (which is why I put the outdent), I just created it as I thought there was a logical break, and it's a pain having to scroll so far up and down all the time. If people don't like it they are more than free to undo it, no issue. trackratte (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If the first sentence and second paragraph are joined in that way, there would be no need to add in "(where she is most directly involved)". Qexigator (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not fussed either way, just though it would help to drive the point home for those wishing to have the UK underscored. With the way the paragraph has been redone, I think it makes a lot of sense to simply join the first sentence to it (flows nicely, succinct, and neutral POV). trackratte (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I can only echo my earlier remark: the lede at present is acceptable to me. I'd say perfectly so if the second paragraph were rejoined to the first (I don't know why GoodDay felt the need to separate them again). I don't think the "with which she is most often personally involved" bit should be in; but, if it's preferred by the the "pro-UK" crowd, I'll accept it. Otherwise, for those who prefer (or insist) the lede say Elizabeth II is "queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries", the lede as is does: "she has been... queen regnant of... the United Kingdom..." (Elizabeth II is queen of the United Kingdom) "...Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. From their dates of independence, she is also 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 15 other countries). With that desire satisfied, if they could accept (not love, but accept) what they wanted being in the second sentence of the lede, we'd be at the end of this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any consensus being reached to merge the opening sentence into the following (recently changed without a consensus) paragraph. Therefore, I re-seperated them. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've implimented a few bold changes to the article's intro. I still prefer Queen of the United Kingdom and the other 15.... However, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zeland etc etc... is a heck of alot better then Queen of 16.... I wish to point out however, that AFAIK, UK+15 is still favoured by most editors at this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be, more or less grudgingly, considered acceptable, is more truthfully said than "favoured". One of the fallacies or equivocations of rhetorical device and polemics is the pretext of asserting as known something that is not, in order to score a point by concealing the weakness of the case being argued: to fool enough of the people long enough for the occasion. Even when used skilfully, it may rebound on the proponent. Qexigator (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, we needed to have atleast one country mentioned in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Moratorium

Regardless of this Rfc's outcome. I wonder if a 6-12 month moratorium should be placed, after this Rfc closes. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I always oppose moratoriums. Unnecessary, mostly unenforceable, inherently censorship. My guess is that once we switch the present contentious lead, this issue is unlikely to be brought up again. NickCT (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We can only hope. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Indeed. Hope springs eternal.

But seriously, sometimes there is a bit of contentious material on a page that causes endless bickering. Usually maintain by people trying to WP:SOAPBOX. The Hillary Clinton naming debate was a good example. After the contentious material is change, the debate peters out. NickCT (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bye bye, Queen of 'numbers'. Hello, Queen of 'countries'

Other monarch articles seem to have the dates of reign in the first sentence. I'm thinking something like: "Elizabeth II ... is the longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, Australia, .... of which she has been Queen since 6 February 1952. She has also been Queen of 12 other states since their dates of independence: Jamaica, .... In addition to her role as head of state of these 16 Commonwealth realms, she is also Head of the Commonwealth." W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Too wordy. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In what sense "too wordy"? I don't think it's too many words for an opening paragraph - many opening paragraphs are much longer than that. If you mean too many words for too little information, then that may be true and improvements are welcome, but all of the information here seems pertinent, and there's no obvious way of saying it clearly using significantly fewer words. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the length of the opening sentence at 06:45 5 October 2015 (UTC) and that it contains the "12 other" phrase that is objected to above. I would like to see it split into two sentences as: Elizabeth II ... has been the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952. From their dates of independence, she 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. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not just "Since their independence, she is..." or "...she has been..." ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that would be fine. Qexigator (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are we tinkering with the lead sentence? We should just wait till the RfC concludes and implement the RfC wording. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess because (this time around) nobody was reverting the changes & screaming "no consensus". GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - NO CONSENSUS!!! NickCT (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's up to you, if you want to revert. Just like it was up to Trackratte, days earlier. You're even allowed to impliment Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..., if you so choose. I've no control over this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - Just a tongue-in-cheek comment mate. This conversation does seem like an awkward tangent. I suspect people who don't like the result of the RfC above are trying to detract from it. NickCT (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nick: In case you missed the happy event as it casually flitted by: Result of side-bar poll is no-consensus and is thus withdrawn 22:30, 4 October 2015(UTC).[6] and We've pretty much explored every combination of words and concepts that we could apply to the lede, and we've explored some interesting aspects. The "black and white" differentiation of the realms, for example. I don't think it is possible to find any simple and elegant way of describing precisely how Elizabeth II is a monarch in so many ways to so many people, but what I'm seeing is that every one of us has noted in some way that the UK holds a special place in her life 22:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC).[7] The relief on the arrival at this outcome, experienced by participants in the discussions before and after the freeze, has induced some light-hearted but good-natured remarks. It was facilitated, no doubt, by the 3 day freeze. Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The "side-bar poll" wasn't the RfC, which so far as I know is still open, unless someone wants to close it. I think we are all reasonably happy with the wording. I'm very glad that it all seems to have worked out well with not too many rocks thrown and even some nice words here and there. On that note, thank you to everyone for being of good cheer and patience! --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Like Qex said, the 3-day page protection helped calm tempers. Furthermore, the freeze at "16 of 53" seem to solidify opposition to that old version & created a consensus for change to something different. Anyways, I took a bold step & sorta combined Options 1 & 2. So far, nobody's reverted it or tried to strangle me :) GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Skyring, Qexigator, and GoodDay: - The RfC looks like it's developing a consensus for Option 1. We shouldn't tinker with the lead until the RfC is closed and we can move to Option 1. NickCT (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nick: Could it be that there has been a change of mind since your intervention in August 2010, letting your dislike of her be known?[[8]] Now, why not try to keep up with the flow, as expressed by participants above? Qexigator (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qexigator: - Awwwwww..... Ain't that cute. You dug through my edits. Did the RfC not go someone's way, and now they're upset? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, Qex. You shouldn't be bringing up such things from another editor's past. Earlier in this Rfc (or just before it), another editor brought up my past, which IMHO was uncalled for. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

He brings up a good point though, which is that we really should be deleting the "Elizabeth has occasionally faced .. but support for the monarchy and her personal popularity remain high." line from the lede. Pure opinion and editorializing. I guess we'll tackle that after the RfC above closes, and we accept option 1. NickCT (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The wording is awkward. Would anyone agree to beginning Barack Obama by saying he "has been president of the United States since 20 January 2009?" If we are going to be historical, we should mention that she has also been Queen of South Africa and many other countries that are now republics. My recommendation is she is "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states....The other independent states of which she is monarch are Canada, Australia, [etc.]" We can go into the Commonwealth Realm thing in its own section. TFD (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it to "is Queen of...", since she's still alive, hasn't abdicated or been deposed. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I may be raising nit-picky matters, but, I'm also glad we're at the point where these are all that's left. The opening as it now is still looks good. I do, though, agree with TDF's remark about "has been"; it could be taken to mean she was once queen of those countries, but isn't now. If we could alter the order of words to more like what I used in my "compromise" proposal a few days ago—"is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant..."—it would allow "is" to slot in better. I'd like to see "also" dropped in between "is" and "Queen of Jamaica..." in the second sentence; it better connects the second sentence to the first. Then the "also" in the third sentence changes to "additionally", to avoid repetition.

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. From their dates of independence, she is also 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. Additionally, she is Head of the Commonwealth.

Alternately, the Head of the Commonwealth bit could go at the end of the first sentence, since she occupied that position at the same time she became a queen:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. From their dates of independence, she is also the 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.

There are still minor ways to tweak either of those, but, I think either would be a step closer to perfection. Also, there's space for mention of Elizabeth being Supreme Governor of the Church of England; but, I guess whether that's in or out is a separate discussion (though, I don't really know why). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We'll be switching to option 1 at the conclusion of the RfC. If you have an alternative proposal, please RfC to demonstrate consensus, as has been done above for option 1. NickCT (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
• WP:DEM: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting."
• WP:RFC: "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method of determining outcome..."
• WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: - Wow. You can recite policy. Does that mean you're ready to have the RfC above closed? NickCT (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies: On fine tuning the prose for communicating the information, the "less is more" axiom would support the simple statement we now have: Elizabeth II ... is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, since 6 February 1952. Would that be improved by changing the word order to: Elizabeth II ... is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Maybe. There seems no good reason to make further change to what we now have:[9]From their dates of independence, she is the 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. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, in fact, what I suggested and what's there now are the same length; the "6 February 1952" simply shifts from the end to sit between "is" and "Queen of..." So, it violates the "less is more" axiom no more than what we have at present. I just find the rhythm reads better. Plus, it's certain the date relates to all four "queenships" (and Head of the Commonwealth, if it moves to the first sentence), rather than possibly just to her place as Queen of New Zealand.

I gave a reason why the addition of "also" helps in the second sentence. If it's a matter of adding another word (back to less is more), then, moving Head of the Commonwealth to the end of the first sentence makes all the changes with only the addition of an "as", which I think we can live with. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Qex. Sometimes, too much nitpicking can unravel a workable solution. Besides, as seen below, nothing has been decided yet. We all agree on a change, but we all haven't agreed on what change. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As Trackratte pointed out (a few days ago) about a consensus, everyone must be in agreement. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If we want to include all the CRs it might be better to say, "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada...and Saint Kitts and Nevis." We could footnote that we are using the Commonwealth order of precedence and explain what it is. TFD (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - Indeed. Consensus is unanimity. I'm keeping my fingers crossed too. Does everyone feel the RfC has run it's course? We can get it closed now if that's the case. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out, if you (Nick) were to revert the changes of these last few days, back to the protected version. You would be doing the same thing that Trackratte & Mies did. I'm comfortable with the latest version in the intro, btw. Though "UK+15" remains my preference. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinoin on the current version. My only opinion is that the RfC above demonstrated what appears to be a consensus for option 1. It's fine if we want to move to something else, but we should have one discussion at a time. NickCT (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just pointing out, that if it was alright for Trackratte & Mies to revert per no consensus? then it's alright for you (or anybody else) to revert per no consensus. We certaintly don't want to end this Rfc, under a cloud of bias or double standard. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should use the version agreed to in the RfC. If someone thinks there is a better version, then keep the agreed change and start a new RfC. TFD (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no version agreed to in the RfC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Normally when the overwhelming majority of editors responding to an RfC select one option, that is considered agreement. TFD (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

See my comment at 17:56, 5 October 2015. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Mies, we've yet to achieve a consensus. Indeed, we haven't heard from all the participants, in the last several hours. AFAIK, everyone has agreed to a change from "16 of 53". GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: - The closer gets to decide that. Are we ready to close? NickCT (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - I think Mies wants his wording or no wording. There are always going to be difficult folks. At some point we just have to call in an independent closer to look at the RfC and determine if there's consensus. That's how DR works. I'm only going to accept one of the three options presented in Talk:Elizabeth_II#RfC_on_opening_sentence_in_lede, unless there's a poll showing an alternative proposal that has more or equal support. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Let's do one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: - Thanks! NickCT (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nick, please cease trying to be provocative by making baseless accusations of bad faith. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Also watch your personal attacks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wowsers, when I decided to compromise with my big edit to the intro (earlier today), it really got the ball rolling. Guess I wasn't pushing my Canadian republican PoV, afterall ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead as of 5 October 2015

Second and final RfC. Votes stand as: Support = 9, Oppose = 2

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, since 6 February 1952. From their dates of independence, she is the 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. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. Users who can endorse this version, or a near copy of this version pending minor copy-edits Factual and fair. Also, easily amended when the inevitable comes (e.g. "was the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, from 6 February 1952 until her death. From their independence onwards, she was the" and has room for expansion, with either other offices or the now-republican realms, after the part about "Head of the Commonwealth". This prose is as clear as it can be without over-simplification or loss of information and it can be adapted to suit future events. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Support. Gives proper balance and clarity. I would prefer a slight rewording: "...Since their independence, she has been the..." - but that is a minor quibble. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) My preference is "...United Kingdon and the 15 other". However, this version does include the United Kingdom & per WP:WEIGHT, places it at the front of the lineup. PS - it helps create a good balance between the intro, infobox & article title :) GoodDay (talk) 2:54 pm, Today (UTC−4) - - - Comment: Haranguing of editors outside the discussion page smacks of back-room logrolling. I would appreciate keeping discussion transparent and to a single forum if at all possible, so that when people change their minds we can appreciate their reasoning and accept the results in good-faith. trackratte (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, the freezer-man is obviously disqualified from any mediating role, such as determining outcome or closure of RfC, and has put one of the current participants in an awkward position. Qexigator (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC) For the sake of AGF and in the name of tattered civility, I am trying not to believe what my eyes keep telling me about this exchange, so I request clarification: it appears that when queried on his own talk page about the abrupt termination of his outspoken advocacy for this RfC's outcome, a participant of this discussion admitted himself too fearful of attack and retaliation (that he anticipated likely to cost him his Wikipedia participation!) to continue dissenting from the opinion of an opposing interlocutor, whereupon he has been met here, publicly, with -- intimidation and attack! If, as I hope, that isn't what has transpired -- what has? FactStraight (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) Support Meets the desires of those who wanted "Queen of the United Kingdom" stated first while still implying no bias in favour of any particular country (or countries) and reduces what was previously two paragraphs into one. Could maybe do with some minor tweaks, but, generally, this is acceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Support The discussion has manifestly left the RfC versions behind, which have effectively lapsed, so that we can take the current version, as above, for the outcome, open for further discussion/tweaking in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC) This version (by Mies.)[10] looks to me the best so far: "... is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. From their dates of independence, she is also the Queen of Jamaica, ...and Saint Kitts and Nevis." Qexigator (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Should we go with it, then, as the copy of the above version with minor copy-edits? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC) That was then. Let the opener in the current version[11] be the one to go forward. Qexigator (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Support It is a clear statement of fact without artificial perspective. I do take issue with the tense though, the present perfect continuous is the correct form here, not the simple present. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Support Incorporates all of the major points that everyone brought to the table, and thus satisfies the goal of the RFC. It is neutrally presented, fair, factual, and concise. trackratte (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Support We're into the tweaking stage now. Nobody's going to get their 100% preferred wording, but this is more than just a compromise we might grumble about, it is an accurate and comprehensible statement. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Support wearily. I think this is as good as it gets, although I still share most of the objections of the opponents. FactStraight (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Tense - I see this has already been reverted, so to avoid any suggestion of warring we'd better agree on the tense here. Stripping out most of the sentence to leave the verbs: Elizabeth ... is the Queen ... since 6 February 1952. - this is the simple present and states a fact which is currently true, it is poor English to have "since" because the verb is only referring to this instant. Elizabeth ... has been Queen ... since 6 February 1952. - at some point in the past (since 1952) she became Queen, and continues to be; the present perfect continuous. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC) MoS: If it were a question only of getting the "correct" tense, then that would be all. But to communicate the intent without more words than are needed? Compare "will not put up with" and "up with which we will not put". Would this be better: Elizabeth II ... is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and has been from her accession on 6 February 1952. From their dates of independence, she is the Queen of Jamaica, Barbados....? Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Personally I prefer the simple "has been" approach, but perhaps that won't swim the Atlantic too well. If we go with your suggestion I think it needs to be "From their dates of independence she became the Queen of Jamaica, Barbados....". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I know it seems like we're going in circles here, but something more like "...is, since her accession in 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Cana..." I think flows a lot better. The exact date (6 Feb) seems like more detail than is necessary for the first sentence. This also makes it clearer why we're mentioning a date at all in the lede (accession). trackratte (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC) However "is, since" is just plain wrong, sounds wrong and sticks out like a sore thumb. It's like misplaced apostrophes; they force you to stop, snigger and then restart. Often informal speech employs such uses, but we are meant to be writing a encyclopaedia, not a third form essay. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC) MoS: You're not wrong. What about Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, from her accession in 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and, from their dates of independence,.... ? But maybe another editor can make a better composition, prose-wise, to the same effect of meaning. Qexigator (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I think that's too long as a first sentence and is clearer if retained as two. DrKiernan (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) I guess others may agree more with two sentences than one, so I've put it back to two (but it seems to me to flow better, and more easily, as one). Qexigator (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC) To that, let a monosyllable speak for me: Yes. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I think that works well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Why are we mentioning dates? And if we are, why not mention the other CRs that have come and gone? TFD (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Users who oppose this version Oppose - Still lacks precision. Still has many of emphasis issues the old lead had. Don't understand why we're not just sticking with option 1 as proposed above. It achieved a super majority support. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose Clumsy wording. No explanation why we are talking about when various countries became independent. Also, it is unfair to set up an RfC and not accept the outcome. TFD (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Both its setting up and its supposed outcome are flawed to the point of reducing it to a useless nullity, except that the ensuing discussion has resulted in the current version. Now, that may not be as perfect as some would wish, but it is not clumsy, and it could be seen as unfair to make that jab. Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Respectfully, an RFC "is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content", which is exactly what this is, an ongoing series of inputs regarding a dispute and thus forms part of the ongoing dispute resolutions process. I think we are confusing the request for comments towards an ongoing conversation with voting, which is not what this process is about. trackratte (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC) That would of course include this current 'voting process', aswell. Which also isn't binding. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Absolutely right ("an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding"). trackratte (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Like some others, for reasons already stated I doubt the use of a so-called straw poll here, or, if that is what is supposed to have been going on, the way in which it has been conducted or may be exploited. The better course is to let it quietly be forgotten, and let the present proposal, as presented here by DrKiernan, take its place.[12] Qexigator (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Comment on comment - Frankly, I think it would be kind to call the wording "clumsy". It looks like something I might write after a pub crawl or several severe blows to the head. Sadly, when we contort language to attempt to compromise, it often results in this situation. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "The official website of The British Monarchy" says, "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."[13] That's the type of professional writing to which we should aspire. TFD (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC) This isn't a British website. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC) TFD, the official site for the Canadian monarchy says, "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada." Seems equally professional and even more concise. That doesn't mean we should use it though, or even let it influence this discussion, as it clearly expresses a biased (Canadian) point of view and is thus not neutral, in the same way as the official British website. Yes, the UK being larger, more populous, and having more cultural clout is used more often internationally, which is why the UK is listed first amongst all other states, to give it that additional weight. However, to be neutral and fair, as an international encyclopedia should, we also list all of the other countries in an unbiased way (ie chronologically). I think your concerns regarding the UK and weight have been met here (with compromises being made away from "queen of 16"), and thus this offered solution is quite thoroughly middle ground. trackratte (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC) If I may gentlemen. TFD has chosen to oppose the version. Let's respect that & not turn this into another debate. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC) While the Queen's website is located in the UK, as is the Queen herself, it is not a "British website," any more than Wikipedia is an "American website." In fact it invites visitors to "Choose your Commonwealth Realm."[14] That would make no sense if only visitors from the UK were targeted. When one clicks "Canada" it says, "The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctly from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms." trackratte, the Government of Canada website is not the official site for the Canadian monarchy. It of course explains the Royal Family, but it is prepared by officials of the Government of Canada rather than the monarch.[15] TFD (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC) The fact that "it is prepared by officials of the Government of Canada" is what, my dear TFD, makes it official. The British Monarchy website is also prepared by officials, unless you are saying that the Elizabeth II wrote the entire thing personally herself. And the fact that it is "The official website of The British Monarchy" makes it British, so your assertion that the official website of the British Monarchy is not a British website is nonsensical. However, if you would like to continue to believe that the British Monarchy website prepared by British officials is not a British website, then we can simply agree to disagree, laugh about it, and leave it at that. trackratte (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC) The Royal Family's website is "Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present."[16] OTOH, "The Government of Canada created Canada.ca"[17] - it is the official website of the Government of Canada. Notice the Royal Family's website provides contact information for its members, while the Canadian site does not, although it allows you to email the PM and other Canadian government officials. Incidentally, can you explain why Canadians were described (even in Canadian passports) as "British subjects", unless it was because they were subjects of the British monarch? (Yes I know the the term has been changed by statute, but it was established by common law.) Any idea when BC will change its name to CC?? TFD (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC) The domain is .gov.uk. It's British government. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC) In case you were unaware, the government of the UK provides support for the royal family. Note that the Private Secretary to the Sovereign, who is the link between the Canadian GG and the Queen is a member of the Royal Household and paid by the UK government. By your logic, that means the GG reports to the UK government. TFD (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC) TFD, I'm not saying this is an intentional misrepresentation, but it's a misrepresentation nonetheless. The Canadian GG is the representative of the Queen of Canada directly, there is no intermidieary. And the British Private Secretary does not link Canada to Elizabeth II, that is the job of the Canadian Secretary to the Queen, who is presently Kevin MacLeod. The government of Canada provides support to the institution of the Canadian crown, not the UK. trackratte (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) What a non-sequitur, and one I'm sure the Canadian Secretary to the Queen would take offense to. But, maybe that's really just me taking any opportunity I can to scream CANADA!! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC) See The Queen's Other Realms: "The lynchpin of communication between the Palace and some 31 Government Houses and prime ministerial or premiers' offices around the Crown Commonwealth [15 other realms, 10 Canadian provinces and 6 Australian states] is the Queen's Private Secretary....the private secretary is not part of the civil service...The Queen's secretary corresponds with all official secretaries serving her governors, although correspondence with lieutenant-governors of the Canadian provinces is normally channelled through Rideau Hall. He also communicates with her prime ministers and premiers." (pp. 35-37[18] The point is that the Royal Household is not a strictly UK institution, although that is their major work, and both the Queen and her Principal Secretary, both of whom are members of the Royal Household, are authoritative for the Queen of Canada. The Canadian Secretary to the Queen is primarily responsible for "organizing and running all aspects of Royal tours", according to Canada's Constitutional Monarchy. I do not know if your opinions are formed by by an ignorance of sources or whether you merely choose to reject them. But this discussion would be more productive if you did not misrepresent them. TFD (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) This discussion ceased being productive when you held that the British monarchy website, hosted at .gov.uk, funded by the British treasury, is not a British website. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC) The Queen is British, lives in the UK and is supported by the UK government. When the Royal Household moves to Rideau Hall no doubt the government of Canada will host her servers. TFD (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) You're confusing the office(s) with the person. The office is a corporation sole, thus the nationality of the office and the person are not necessarily the same set. The office of the Queen of Canada has nothing to do with the Royal Household of the UK. You can move it to the moon, there's no relevance. trackratte (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) The source I provided is The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, written by a noted scholar,[19] and published by the academic press.[20] Do you seriously think that the Queen does not rely on the Royal Household for every realm? Do you think if she wants to send a letter to the PM she dictates it long distance to the Canadian secretary? I doubt the author is more confused than you are. TFD (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC) This sub-discussion is helpfully educative, but I am restraining my keyboard digits from letting me fall into a rabbit hole. Qexigator (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC) 3. I've chosen to oppose this version, as the 'balance' between the article title, lede & infobox is (IMHO) being upset. Also, re-affirming my support for Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other states, in the lede. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All aboard?

So close & yet so far away. Trackatte is quite correct, WP:VOTE makes the above unbinding. We've a consensus to get rid of "16 of 53", but we've yet to get a consensus for what to change to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh Good Good Good. Are you expecting the same courtesy you extended to others. Slightly naive. You'll find the opposing side isn't going to be quoting WP:VOTE now that the votes gone their way. They've successfully talked in circles until we arrive back at the same bad compromise again. And you've helped that happen. NickCT (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out, yours & TFD's vetoes are just as valid as Mies & Trackratte's vetoes. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion as to how to improve the present lede so it better satisfies your concerns and those of the other editors here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Including a list of countries in the first sentence is undue, poor writing and not reflective of almost an source on the topic. You and a couple other editors are insisting on this approach in order to WP:SOAPBOX. Unfortunately, since you and couple other editor are insisting on maintaining what is an obviously poor structure, there is not going to be any reasonable solution on which we're all going to agree. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked for a suggestion as to how to improve the present lede so it better satisfies your concerns and those of other editors here. All you gave was a criticism. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I explained why I have no suggestions which will satisfy everyone's concerns. My concern, and the concern of seemingly everyone with a vague appreciation for English and concision is that listing out countries as we are currently doing is, simply put, stupid. The only approach which will alleviate that, is not listing out countries. You, and a vocal minority, are insisting on the list in order to WP:SOAPBOX, and hence there no compromises which will satisfy both the desire for concision and due weight, and your desire to WP:SOAPBOX. It's not criticism. It's explaining why it's hard to suggest improvements to something which is inherently dumb. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I asked for a suggestion as to how to improve the present lede so it better satisfies your concerns and those of other editors here, not an error-riddled, bad faith whinge about how you can't achieve satisfaction of all and only your concerns. Regardless, I won't ask again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Error-riddled? Stop trying to evade the central point. You know very well you're insisting on a list countries in order to WP:SOAPBOX. You understand very well that this is what everyone seems to dislike.

Quit trying to make other people seem difficult because they don't want to pander to your childish insistence on perverting the quality of the article in order to make your point. NickCT (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

All you participants will have to decide among yourselves: "Queen of the United Kingdon and the 15 other independent countries" or Queen of the "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc". GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, all of you must ask yourselves this: If the only choices were:
"Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other...." or
"Queen of Canada and the 15 other...." or
"Queen of Australia and the 15 other...."
"Queen of New Zealand and the 15 other..." or
"Queen of Jamaica and the 15 other...." (well, you all get my point)
What would each of you choose? Very interesting, eh? GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We may be thankful for this prudent alert about the way to go. Passers-by may already know something about the setting up of this barker's fairground tent or showboat saloon, as well as card games such as Three-card Monte. Qexigator (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If I were writing an article that could be understood by a world-wide audience, I would say "Queen of the UK [etc.]", which is how she is styled in the two largest population CRs (UK and Canada) and Grenada. I notice that the Church of England and Commonwealth websites ignore the realms entirely when explaining her role. TFD (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And the lede now says "Queen of the United Kingdom [etc]". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that if the options were just those that I mentioned above? The overwelming choice would be "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other...". There's no possible way that any of the other 15 options would have a chance. Something to think about folks. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Request from bot-summoned editor to "hat" the above older discussions since they have been evolved, digressed, changed and become generally obsolete to the thread. Or is there actually a single RfC that is currently in progress to decide on the choice? Or has the RfC been decided on? Just wondering. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, 8 editors prefer the recently adopted version & 3 prefer the 'United Kingdom and the 15 other independent countries...' version. I'm not certain as to what this RFC's status is, but you're the first to comment on it in roughly a week. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to do a "close" then if there hasn't been anyone commenting for a week or so, but this is going to get very confusing, very quickly isn't it? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we're happy with the current version. It's been an interesting ride, but we're at a point where we can close the thing. The party has moved along to other areas, like Supreme Mufti of the Church of England, where my interest is minimal. --Pete (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.