Jump to content

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Dispute over the designation of Queen's Representative

Preventing an edit war, I have decided to bring this issue to the talk page—which, does not only affect this page. The designation of Queen's Representative – is, in my opinion, an inappropriate one. As there is not always going to be a Queen, this title will render redundant once the royal succession occurs, and we will have to figure whether to have Queen's Representative – or King's Representative –. We cannot have both. Monarchical Representative –, to me, was a compromise and gender-neutral. Among debates with this user, he claims that I have invented the term of Monarchical Representative. This is absolute nonsense. There was nothing to invent, the Queen's Representative (of which there is only one worldwide), is a monarchical representative. This is a description, a designation; not a title. Neve-selbert 12:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned that you had intended the term "Monarchical representative" as a compromise. Compromise with whom and between what positions? Was there a discussion about this where you reached a compromise with someone?
There is not a single Google hit for the words "monarchical representative" being an adjectival construction. So it seems it hasn't occurred to anyone else to describe the office of the Queen's Representative with those words. That is what I meant by invention. So "monarchical representative" is neither the constitutional term for the position, nor can you claim that it is the widely used description of it. So in my opinion this newly coined term is clearly out of the question. Had you chosen "Monarch's representative", that at least has some Google hits and I, for one, would find that acceptable. ZBukov (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, three points:
  1. No, there is no other discussion taking place.
  2. Invention is a totally inaccurate term to use, it is a description and a designation—nothing more and nothing less.
  3. I misspelled Monarchical as Monarchial. Sorry for that.
Now, your compromise that Monarch's Representative – is a poor alternative. It is similar to replacing Serb Member – as Serbs' Member – per Bosnia and Herzegovina. Whilst technically correct—as he is the Serb's choice for member of the presidency—it is simply inappropriate and should not be done. As per Andorra, in which we use Co-Prince's Representative –, I believe this matter is distinct somewhat. The title is unlikely to change if there is a female French President, so keeping this situation the way it is for now seems to be the safest option, in stark contrast to Queen's Representative.
We must make it clear that Queen's Representative is not a permanent title.
What should appear—once the Queen eventually dies—when there is a King reigning as monarch? There is no precedent for this, as the title has only actually existed since 1982. Neve-selbert 13:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
So would you please specify how or why your new term would be a compromise? Compromise between what?
You appear to ignore my point that according to Google no-one uses such a description for this office (or for anything else, for that matter).
I didn't suggest renaming the Serb member of the Bosnian presidency as "Serb's member", not least because it would be incorrect. (Because even following your logic it would the "Serbs' member".)
Why must we make it clear that it's not a permanent title? For one thing, the logic behind your argument must be pretty evident to everyone. And for another thing, I'm sorry to disappoint but it is actually a permanent title. Their constitution names it so. And it is not up to you to re-write the constitution of the Cook Islands in gender-neutral terms. Just like you would be incorrect to claim that the British anthem is either "God save the monarch" or otherwise it is not a permanent anthem.
What should happen on Her Majesty's demise is up to the legislature of the Cook Islands. I am perfectly aware of the lack of precedent regarding this and of the recent provenance of the office. And, by the way, if you want to turn "Queen's Representative" into a gender-neutral, generic term, "Monarch's Representative" is the closest thing and it means the least change. ZBukov (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Now, be civil. Your point about me ignoring your points (and several other jabs), e.g. or for anything else, for that matter is plain rude. The Google suggestion is redundant, the popular search engine is not taken as gospel. This matter is about a designation not a title. I do not object placing Monarch's Representative into consideration, although I remained unconvinced as to why Monarchical Representative – should be ruled out. It is not a title, for the hundredth time, it is purely linking the fact that the state leader in question is a monarchical representative. It is not a permanent title de facto (rather than de jure). This is true, is it not? Neve-selbert 14:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Idea: Viceregal Representative – seems to be the perfect compromise—of which I had originally intended, I will have you know. See List of viceregal representatives of Elizabeth II. Neve-selbert 14:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I came in from the Teahouse. Just to mention that the article Queen's Representative states it as being a formal title. If that is true, we are bound to use it as is. Also, we are supposed to be using the most common name, which would be Queen's representative. That is where the Google argument comes in. It is a measure of how common something is. Lastly, the current monarch is a Queen. Her representatives represent her, not monarchs in general. If she dies and there is a King, he will have representatives representing the King. This would not change the fact that people who had represented the Queen during her reign would still have represented the Queen. Also, Neve-selbert, I am not finding ZBukov incivil. He is commenting on your suggestion (as is proper) rather than you. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Happysquirrel, may I just point out that this matter actually has practically nothing to do with titles. No-one is suggesting we change Queen's Representative of the Cook Islands to Monarchical Representative of the Cook Islands or Viceregal representative of the Cook Islands. All that I am asking is to change the designation. In a similar way, for example, the President of the Government of Spain and the Minister of State of Monaco are designated as Prime Minister. Viceregal Representative seems to me as the perfect compromise, as it is a commonly used term to denote representatives of Elizabeth II. As the Cook Islands' are not officially designated with a Governor-General, Viceregal Representative seems to be our best bet. Neve-selbert 21:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean. From what I see the other cases are to give a certain uniformity (ie most countries get a president and a prime minister). I see no other "Viceregal representatives". However, I see a "Co-Prince's representative" for Andorra going back to at least the 50's. I suggest we follow that, apparently established, precedent. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see List of viceregal representatives of Elizabeth II. It is generic title used for all of the representatives of the Queen, The difference with "Co-Prince's Representative" is that it is an established title, which is not meant to be gender-neutral neither de jure nor de facto. If, God forbid, Marine Le Pen were to become the French president next year, it would be extremely unlikely for her to be named as Co-princess of Andorra—firstly, with Andorra being an extremely Catholic country, and secondly, a paradox: if she were to become Co-princess, what would that make the other co-monarch? They would hold different titles, one male and one female. So it would be logically incorrect to designate a female French president as Co-princess of Andorra, as there would only be one. We could also consider the Lord of Mann situation relating to the Queen. She is not Lady of Mann but Lord of Mann. Although, the difference with this scenario is that this is her only title within the Isle of Mann; unlike the Cook Islands, in which she does instead actually hold her most popular title as Queen. To finish off, I honestly believe there is absolutely nothing objectionable nor questionable using Viceregal Representative – rather than the biased designation of Queen's Representative –—of which gives the obvious illusion that the Queen is immortal. Just to add: all of the first three heirs to throne are male, and it would be deeply bemusing to have them designated as Queen's Representative. Neve-selbert 01:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, you again described your own suggestion as being 'the perfect compromise' and I'm still wondering between what positions would this be the middle way.
Do I sense correctly, that you have abandoned the attempt to dismiss the lack of any Google hits for "monarchical representative" as irrelevant, and instead suggest that keeping the current description would trick Wikipedia readers into believing that the Queen is immortal?
In my opinion if you would change the description to 'Viceregal Representative' at the Cook Islands, you would have to use that for every Commonwealth realm, since Governors-General are viceregal representatives all the same, and I can't see any justification for using a generic term for one member of the group, but not for all the others. But if you want to go ahead with that consistently, I have no objections.
And I'm still bemused by the insistence to declare something laid down in a constitution as not sufficiently permanent. ZBukov (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
After mulling it over for a few days, my opinions are much like those of ZBukov. The title "Queen's representative" is clear and descriptive, as well as being the official title. Viceregal representative, though an accurate description is not as self-evident. Furthermore, I really don't see how it suggests the Queen is immortal, any more than God Save the Queen or the descriptor "Her Majesty's Ship", or the practice of writing "On Her Majesty's Service" on letters to our members of parliament instead of postage. When the Queen dies, her heir will almost certainly be male. Then we will have some work to do. We will deal with that problem when it occurs. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
We cannot morbidly wait until her death happens—which could indeed be more than a decade from now (provided she follows the example of the her mother, which seems likely). We would have to remember to change all the articles since 1983 once the death occurs, something which could easily be overlooked. Furthermore, it certainly does imply that the Queen is immortal and is henceforth short of common sense. Now, if we were to be making a List of state anthems in 2015, it would appear as so, without ambiguity:
Moreover, on ZBukov's second point about changing the designations of her other governors-general—this statement grossly underestimates the average intelligence of a reader happening to come across the article. It would be precisely like saying the following: Since a prime minister, president and monarch is either Head of State or Head of Government, does that mean we have to change all those designations as Head of State and Head of Government to match the President of the Territorial Assembly of Wallis and Futuna, etc.?. This is ridiculous. As nobody ever refers to the Queen's Representative as Governor-General we have no choice but to look to a conceivable alternative versus the gender-biased Queen's Representative. To finish off, just some food for thought: are most people aware that the actual, de jure title of the monarch of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is constitutionally King, and not Queen? Of course not, and, thanks to common sense (among not just us but also the Dutch) this will never become an issue. Now, let us bring our common sense into this dispute. Viceroy – seems to be the non-contentious, adequate fit—viceregal representative is usually not used singularly, having further researched. Article Monarchy in the Cook Islands clearly states a viceroy of the Cook Islands. Neve-selbert 06:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you have changed your suggestion for the third time; from "monarchical representative" to "viceregal representative" and now to "viceroy". You promptly declared your current idea to be 'common sense' and 'adequate fit' (after the earlier 'perfect compromise') and immediately proceeded to update 15 articles with your latest idea. Let me remind you that neither of us (nor anyone else) have had a chance to react to your latest idea, and no agreement or compromise has been reached yet. Consequently I reverted your changes. It would be nice if you tried a bit harder to engage in the debate in a civil and cooperative fashion.
I must admit it is rather baffling that you criticize one of my points for grossly underestimating the average intelligence of the reader; and at the same time you are concerned that readers will presume the Queen to be immortal...
It's not true that once Her Majesty passes away the description in each article from 1983 would have to be changed. Because until either she dies or the Cook Islands' constitution is changed, the incumbent remains the Queen's Representative, and that will not change in hindsight.
I stand by my earlier position, that if you want to change the description (and only the description, not the title) of the Queen's Representative to Viceregal representative or Monarch's representative, than you will have to change the descriptions of the Governors-General, and maybe even that of the Andorran Co-Princes' personal representatives. If you are ready to do all that, I have no objections. ZBukov (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please respond to the points I have made above. Neve-selbert 11:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and another baffling point which has apparently escaped your attention. Viceroy indicates a male incumbent (vicereine is either a female incumbent, or the wife of a viceroy, therefore inevitably rendering the term 'viceroy' loaded in gender terms). So now you are trying to replace a non-gender neutral term (Queen's Representative) with another one (viceroy)... Therefore your latest suggestion is hardly 'non-contentious' and an 'adequate fit'. Please think again.
I believe I have responded to your substantive points. Please read again my previous note. The reason why I refused to dwell on the topics of the British anthem and the Dutch monarch is that those are not under consideration here, they were merely examples to elucidate a point. ZBukov (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Neve, as I pointed out much earlier, and ZBukov pointed out again, people who represented the Queen during her reign will still have rpresented her and her eventual death will not change that. Furthermore, no one is asking anyone to take responsibility for making all the changes the minute the Queen dies. Everyone will pitch in and make the changes on the pages they care about. Lastly, we have been discussing for some time and neither ZBukov nor I are finding your arguments convincing. We have tried to present well structured counter arguments and rebuttals which you have not found adequate. This is going nowhere. Perhaps it is time for an RfC? Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The term vicereine is sometimes used to indicate a female viceroy suo jure, although viceroy can serve as a gender-neutral term. Vicereine is more commonly used to indicate a viceroy's wife.

An RfC is not necessary—although I would like to pitch in my final points—here. I believe we can cut this discussion short with a key balance.
  1. Queen's Representative – is as biased a term as having the King of Lesotho designated as King – instead of the more apt description as Monarch –. It is also inconsistent, as Elizabeth II is always designated as Monarch – and never as Queen –. Why should the QR be any different?
  2. Here are our present two alternatives:
    1. Monarch's Representative—apparently unopposed by Zoltan Bukovszky. I am warming to this option.
    2. Viceroy—supported by myself (originally as Monarchical Representative – and Viceregal Representative –, seems non-contentious.
I am ready to give up on my urging of the second option. To quote ZBukov:
And, by the way, if you want to turn "Queen's Representative" into a gender-neutral, generic term, "Monarch's Representative" is the closest thing and it means the least change.
We may very well have a solution, then (albeit belated). Neve-selbert 22:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Belated indeed. After the course of this debate, I prefer to wait until you warm to an acceptable option (including the idea of implementing it consistently). ZBukov (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have warmed to this option. Now, I just need the go-ahead to implement it and finish off this tired discussion. Neve-selbert 23:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, support your initiative to change the description preceding the names of Queen's Representatives, Governors-General and Co-Prince's Representatives to "Monarch's Representative". ZBukov (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Erm, I think you have misread me. I am only in favour of changing the description per the Cook Islands. Now, I have found a Google hit referring to the QR as a viceroy. We do not have to change the descriptions of all the viceregal representatives of the Queen. This should not be done; the only reason why the Cook Islands cannot have a G-G is due to the fact that they are not entirely separate and sovereign from New Zealand. Having found this news article, I find myself swaying back to supporting Viceroy instead of Monarch's Representative. This remains a special exception, consistency is not an issue here. Neve-selbert 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"Consistency is not an issue here"? I beg to differ. It is very much of an issue here. You yourself used consistency of wording as an argument, when it suited you. Funny how you simply declare inconvenient things to be irrelevant, like in the case of the complete absence of Google hits for "monarchical representative". And now one article comes up that supports your latest idea, and then it becomes convincing (overlooking the fact that for the time being "viceroy" is an adequate term since the current incumbent is male, just like "Queen's Representative" is adequate since the monarch is female, though neither phrase is gender-neutral, which was your grievance in the first place). But anyway. You changed your opinion yet again, so back to square one. As I said, I'll wait until you warm to an acceptable option.
Pointing out that the Cook Islands cannot have a Governor-General is missing the point. If the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands is a Monarch's Representative, then so are the Governors-General, so are the Lieutenant-Governors in the Crown dependencies, and indeed so are the Andorran Co-Princes' personal representatives. And as I wrote earlier, I can't see any justification for using a generic term for one member of the group (Cook Islands), but not for all the others. Therefore is was not that I "misread" you, but that I was referring to a point I had repeatedly made during the above debate.
Given the increasing rate of your changes of position, you would indeed do well to take some time and reflect on the arguments and the solution you are pushing for. ZBukov (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I do believe we should note that Governors-General represent the Queen only within sovereign states—a difference which would need to be discerned versus, e.g. the Governor of Anguilla, notably not Governor-General of Anguilla. Secondly, since the Cook Islands are quasi-sovereign—right in the middle between the British territories as the least, and the post-British states as the most—perhaps adding "Associated" (in front of "Viceroy") would be more accurate as an alternative? Her status in the Cook Islands is unique compared to her other realms; unlike Niue, its neighbour, CI uses a seperate representative from NZ on behalf of the British monarch. Zoltan Bukovszky, perhaps clarification would help solve this dispute. Associated Viceroy – seems unambiguous, and is distinct from her other representatives. Neve-selbert 02:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Not acceptable. Now we are back to square zero with another senseless invention, yet again with zero Goggle hits.
Please think a bit about what made you fully agree to "Monarch's Representative" a mere few hours ago. And please read again the arguments we have presented above.
As far as your latest issue (indication of sovereignty) is concerned, you may or may not have noticed but the countries' status is already indicated on the list. Independent states' names are in bold, those of dependencies are not, plus the latter have a short explanation of their status after their name. So no confusion possible there. ZBukov (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I changed the title of this discussion, because you don't dispute the title of the official, merely the description. At least you haven't disputed it so far... ZBukov (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: Your apparent belligerence and condescension is unhelpful and unappreciated, I am trying my hardest to come up with a solution. At least you haven't disputed it so far...: My goodness, you relish an argument, don't you? I am fervently against the title being changed (since, if I wasn't, this discussion would be totally different). Your response as far as your latest concern is beyond sarcasm—having known this 100% already for quite some time, you are simply twisting the discussion. Fine, then. I want you to be clear. Which alternative are you content with, and which do you (vehemently) oppose? Perhaps my most recent (senseless, really?) suggestion was out of desperation. Although I must say, there is nothing wrong with designating the QRs as a viceroy. Hardly anyone refers to the G-Gs as viceroys, in a similar way David Cameron is usually referred to as Prime Minister instead of Head of Government. We refer to the French territorial presidents under prefects as Head of Government, as this is an unambiguous designation—presidents are never head of government without being head of state as well. Viceroy seems fine (Monarch's Representative is a last resort, although I may need to resort to DRN) but your other position of changing all of the other viceregal representatives for consistency is really quite ridiculous. It remains quite possible for the position of "Queen's Representative" to be renamed as "Governor-General" at any one time, after all, it is only a title. What exactly would we resort to then? This may be begging the question, although this is a very potent one. I do believe we are making a mountain out of a molehill with this dispute. Apart from Happysquirrel, we are the only ones facilitating this discussion. Finally, I would like to make clear two things:
  1. I am against changing the designations of all the viceregal representatives as either Viceroy – or Monarch's Representative. It is unnecessary, there are plenty of governors-general and we need to group them all together. I rule this out as a compromise.
  2. I am conflicted with Monarch's Representative: on the one hand, it may solve this dispute quicker. Although on the other hand, having thought about it, it is not superior to Viceroy really in any way. They both have the exact same definition.
If you could just accept Viceroy per this exclusive discussion, this whole discussion could be over and we could move on to more important things, without having to fret about it. We should not be up in arms about this, there are numerous other inconsistencies that we put up with (yep, the Dutch one); we can put up with this one, too. Neve-selbert 09:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"I am trying my hardest to come up with a solution." We have already agreed a few hours ago. You went back on it.
"I want you to be clear." I thought I was clear:
I’ll go for ”Monarch’s Representative” applied to Queen’s Reps, Gov-Gens, Lt-Govs and Co-Prince’s Reps.
I find selective application of new description unacceptable – see my reasons above.
I find ”viceroy” (let alone ”associated viceroy”) unacceptable – see my reasons above.
If you are unhappy with this, we can leave things as they are, and you can move on to more important things.
Happysquirrel suggested RfC yesterday. You dismissed it. ZBukov (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
(And a small factual correction that's immaterial to the above debate. You wrote: "Governors-General represent the Queen only within sovereign states". Nigeria had a Governor-General between 1914-1919 and 1954-63, yet only became independent in 1960. Canada has a Governor-General since 1867, Australia since 1901 and New Zealand since 1917, yet the Statue of Westminster was only passed in 1931.) ZBukov (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't quite grasp how it is this argument has gone on so long. The matter seems straightforward: the title for the representative of the Queen in the Cook Islands is 'Queen's Representative'; that's spelled out explicitly in the Cook Islands constitution. Neve admits right in the OP that it is merely an opinion that 'Queen's Representative' is "inappropriate". I believe sourced fact trumps personal opinion every time. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ₪ MIESIANIACAL, Neve-selbert doesn't dispute the title itself. The issue the editor raises is about the description preceding the incumbent's name, i.e. that 'Queen's Representative', as a generic description for the kind of office, is not gender-neutral. And this I accept as a legitimate point. That's why I would support it to be changed to:
Monarch's Representative – Tom Marsters, Queen's Representative of the Cook Islands (2013–present)
There are two things I couldn't accept.
  1. Applying this new description (Monarch's Representative) only to the Cook Islands and not to every Governor-General, Lieutenant-Governor and (Andorran) Co-Prince's Representative - since those are monarchs' representatives too.
  2. Using 'viceroy', let alone 'associated viceroy' as the generic description - since the former is not really a gender-neutral term either, so that would take us back to square one, and the latter does not exist as an expression to the point of producing zero relevant Google hits. ZBukov (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. We're looking for a generic term to apply to all representatives of a sovereign: governors-general in the Commonwealth realms, representatives of the Co-Princes of Andorra, and, possibly, the regent in Liechtenstein.
Why not simply indent below the monarch and precede the person's name with "personal representative" or "represented by"? Like so:
(I don't know if the Co-Princes' representatives actually have titles.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly support Miesianiacal's idea. It is clearer than anything which has been proposed yet and entirely uniform. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering how 'Represented by' is clearer and more uniform that 'Monarch's representative'. But the bigger issue is that the one instance where this formula will not work is, ironically, the Cook Islands, since the monarch is not mentioned there, as she does not have a title pertaining specifically to the Cook Islands.
It would actually be misleading, as if it referred to the New Zealand Prime Minister, or to the Cook Islands itself. It would look like this:
And apart from Governors-General, Co-Prince's Representatives and the Regent of Liechtenstein, the other category it would inevitably apply to are the Lieutenant-Governors of the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey. ZBukov (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a solution, though it does duplicate:
It may not be ideal, but it can be applied consistently and it does emphasise that the Cook Islands is a monarchy and Elizabeth II reigns over the it (and Niue) as Queen of New Zealand, rather than as queen of anywhere else. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
But "Monarch's representative" can be applied even more consistently, as it doesn't even necessitate inserting any duplication, and it also emphasizes that the Cook Islands is a monarchy (which is already implied by the fact that the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau are under the heading of New Zealand, and expressly confirmed by the description of their status after their names). So what do we have against this?
And it could be applied to all the other cases:

@Zoltan Bukovszky: Represented by is crudely unsuitable. Please remember, we are referring to a designation here, not a common description of the duties of state leaders. This would result in disastrous inconsistency. For example, instead of Head of State – and Head of Government – we would have State headed by – and Government headed by –. Nope, this is not an option—and I completely rule this out as a compromise. It is the worst idea imaginable, yet.

  1. French Co-Prince – and Episcopal Co-Prince – are certainly not redundant. They are absolutely accurate descriptions of their designation within the Andorran state.
  2. Miesianiacal, your ideas have been simply awful so-far. Please consider my arguments:

We have already agreed a few hours ago. You went back on it.

Yes, I did. I had a rethink and thought my concession unnecessary, as "Monarch's Representative" has the exact same definition as "Viceroy".

I’ll go for ”Monarch’s Representative” applied to Queen’s Reps, Gov-Gens, Lt-Gens and Co-Prince’s Reps.

Nope, we cannot do this. If you agreed to replacing all mentions of President – and Prime Minister – with Head of State – and Head of Government –, I will respect this option. I staunchly oppose it, although at least you will have been consistent with your demand for change.

I find ”viceroy” (let alone ”associated viceroy”) unacceptable – see my reasons above.

We need to give and take on this. I have given and taken a lot—so have you to some extent. But yet, we are still getting nowhere.
In retrospect:
Perhaps "Monarchichal Representative" was silly; it just happened to be the first thing that initally came into my mind. So, given your opposition and my understanding of it, I dropped this description as an alternative. So I then moved on to "Viceregal Representative" (due to the title of this article). I happened to forget that "Viceroy" was the more generally-used singular form. So then, upon knowing this, I switched my stance towards "Viceroy". You (of course) opposed this to my dismay. So I considered bringing back "Queen's Representative" into the fray, for consideration. I backtracked due to my uncertainty and growing sceptism of your idea about changing the titles of all her viceregal representatives to a single, consistent title. So, reluctantly, I thought about clarifying my previous alternative ("Viceroy") as "Associated Viceroy". Again, (expected) opposition.

My final position as it stands, now:

I believe that you are entirely wrong to oppose "Viceroy" as the designation on the grounds of inconsistency. Similar to bacteria, inconsistency is everywhere and is impossible to avoid. As long as the inconsistency is not desperately awful, we can live with it. For example, the title of the prime minister of your country, Hungary, is in-fact directly translated as Minister-President. Considering the fact that the translation in English from Hungarian is significantly closer to Prime Minister than the translation of President of the Government is from Spanish, we understand and rectify this. Consider these three points (again).
  • Presidents are heads of state, prime ministers are heads of government. Just because we may designate the head of state of the Central African Republic (as of this writing) as Head of State – instead of President –, this does not in any way, shape or form mean that all of the other presidents thus on the list is in fact not a head of state. This, is what I mean by "underestimating readers' intelligence". Surely, most people would be able to guess what a "viceroy" was, especially considering it is right to the right of the undisputed title of Queen's Representative.
  • We cannot change the designations of all the Governors-General, etc. as "Monarch's Representative". Not only could this be seen as inconsistent (e.g., surely Administrator Paul Bremer was the "President's Representative" when in charge of Iraq after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, would you suggest changing this as well?).
  • Viceroy – is fine and straight-to-the-point. You should consider dropping your opposition, think about it very carefully. I am fully prepared to prolong this debate as long as can be, with whichever action necessary, in order to reach a mutual understanding.

If you are unhappy with this, we can leave things as they are, and you can move on to more important things.

X'ed box Nope: I am determined to remain resolute.

Happysquirrel suggested RfC yesterday. You dismissed it.

I firmly view an RfC (or rather, DRN) as a last resort, but a resort I am prepared for, provided you remain unyielding per my defence.
It seems as if this debate has been all rhetoric and no action. If we end up resorting to straw man fallacies, then I may choose to resort to DRN. Please consider my arguments, debunk them one-by-one, perhaps. Then, I may be forced to yield to a third-party. The same certainly applies vice versa. All I ask, is for Viceroy – as the designation replacing the transient designation of Queen's Representative –. This will remain my view, and surely the apocalypse will not occur if we did re-describe as such. I must reiterate again, that there is nothing concretely wrong with using Viceroy instead. It is absolutely gender-neutral in this day and age, and it is quick and easy answer to quite a complicated situation, of which we are in dispute. I rest my case. Neve-selbert 02:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think DRN is going to last very long if people are going to continue to make bitchy and pointless comments like "your ideas are simply awful".
"Monarch's representative" isn't my favourite. But, it works. "Viceroy" is an actual title. So, its use in this context could be confusing. Plus, I don't know if the lieutenant governors of the Crown Dependencies could be defined as viceroys. It's even said that calling a governor-general a viceroy is a stretch of the term (since there are royal powers they can't exercise). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Viceroy has not been an actual title since the early 20th century; it is now on par with Head of State and Head of Government—simply a designation, nothing more and/or nothing less. I agree with you entirely on your last two points: it is not commonly protocol to refer to lieutenant-governors, governors-general, etc. to as "viceroys". Although the Queen's Representative, however, is referred to as such. Neve-selbert 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and governors-general have been referred to as such, as well. But, that doesn't make it best to do so here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert:, "crudely unsuitable", "worst idea imaginable" and "your ideas have been simply awful" are rather harsh words from someone who suggested "associated viceroy" and "monarchical representative", what's more, reminded others to be civil.
If you go back on an agreement without a good reason, it renders this whole discussion futile, because you can have yet another change of heart at the drop of a hat, thus your agreement to any compromise couldn't be trusted. And, as if to add to the list, you have just revised your previous stance on RfC.
By the way, I don't obeject to replacing the description "president" with "head of state" and "prime minister" with "head of government".
"We need to give and take on this. I have given and taken a lot." I can't really see what is the "lot" you have conceded here.
So to your mind I am underestimating readers' intelligence, while your concern is that the Queen will be presumed to be immortal...
You don't seem to have understood my argument against "viceroy". If there is a proper word (vicereine) to refer to the wife of X, than how could X be gender-neutral? According to Merriam's (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicereine) vicereine is a) the wife of a viceroy b) a woman who is a viceroy. That seems to put paid to the question of how gender-neutral viceroy is. So your own suggestion is "crudely unsuitable" to solve your own original problem.
I'd prefer not to comment on the gung ho, belligerent statements towards the end of your verbose diatribe. I presume you will eventually calm down.
Back to our original business, Happy Squirrel, MIESIANIACAL, could you please offer your opinions?
1) Should we do something about "Queen's representative"?
2) If yes, how we should solve the original issue, i.e. that the phrase is not gender-neutral?
3) Is some argument against the consistent application of "Monarch's representative" for this purpose?
ZBukov (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I said above 'monarch's representative' is fine. Not the best, in my opinion, but fine. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: Oh my goodness gracious! "Back to our original business"? What nonsense. I am the original business; I was the one who fired off this discussion. Have you even been bothered to read my arguments, at least? Viceroy is gender-neutral. Have you ever heard of the Canadian G-G Michaëlle Jean being referred to as a governess-general? Of course not—same argument goes with Viceroy. And, just for the record, there has never actually been a female Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands. Neve-selbert 23:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert:, yes, I took a deep breath and read through your diatribe of threats, insults and arguments. I'm beginning to be puzzled whether you really don't get it, or merely pretending for the fun of it. Have you heard of anyone being referred to as "Governess-General"? Me neither. On the other hand, are you aware that the word "vicereine" exists? If not then look it up, because it does. You could start with the article on Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma. There you will see that it not only exists as a description, but it was her actual title. So the analogy which you presume to exist between Governor-General and Viceroy ("same argument goes with Viceroy") is unfortunately a misunderstanding.
Not that it's relevant here, but I was perfectly well aware that no lady has held the office of Queen's Representative to date. ZBukov (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: I believe that you are confusing "threats, insults, and arguments" with simply stating the facts. You could also argue this whenever I accuse you of belligerence or condescension, etc. Anyway, have a look here. "Vicereine" can have two meanings; "King" and/or "Queen" cannot. This is a big difference. "Merely pretending for the fun of it"? Sigh, would I really write more than 800 words if I really did not care? Perhaps, you have been taken aback by how committed I am to this dispute. Disclaimer: ironclad commitment. Neve-selbert 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear @Neve-selbert:, we seem to be making progress. So now that we acknowledge that the word 'vicereine' exists, let me ask you this. If there is a word that means either wife of X or female X, than can X be gender-neutral? Please provide a concise justification, if your answer is anything other than "No". ZBukov (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
We seem to be calming down the tone a bit now, @Zoltan Bukovszky: in answer to your question: not exactly. I am quite sure you are aware that there is always going to be a pro-male bias via default, especially in English (compared to such Romance languages as French), this is purely fact dating back almost millennia. The Wikipedia page is titled as such—this is mainly how I justify it. Neve-selbert 01:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You're presenting 'viceroy' as a gender-neutral term based on a pro-male bias? Uhmmm....
Zoltan is correct, 'viceroy' is the term for a male individual appointed to exercise all the powers of a monarch and 'vicereine' is the term for the wife of the aforementioned or a female individual appointed to exercise all the powers of a monarch. 'Viceroy' is not gender-neutral. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: The pro-male bias is rooted in history, i.e. Governor-General and not Governess-General, etc. It is somewhat considered an anachronism to refer to a female viceroy as "vicereine". On the lead section of the article of Viceroy it states that "The term vicereine is sometimes used to indicate a female viceroy suo jure, although viceroy can serve as a gender-neutral term." Therefore, 'viceroy' is gender-neutral. Neve-selbert 03:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
My current opinion after reading and considering all the arguments is 1) While I have been convinced Queen's representative may not be optimal , I don't realistically think anyone will be seriously offended, misled or otherwise harmed if we cannot agree on a change. 2) I am currently most in favour of Monarch's representative because a) the term monarch is used across the board for monarchs, so we get some consistency b) it is a pure description of the role. The "represented by" formulation is my second choice. It has the advantages of Monarch's representative but will entail some clunky rewording. My position on Viceroy is that it is not a commonly used word for curent events. It may be the correct term but I suspect many of our readers will have to look it up. Also, while Viceroy can be applied to women, Vicereine is also in use for female Viceroys. This does not seem to improve the gender neutrality issue. It also invites a stream of well meaning but clueless editors changing Viceroy to Vicereine for female officeholders. 3) I remain unconvinced by the arguments that we should change the descriptor for the Cook Islands but nowhere else. I think any change should be consistent. Lastly, I usually try to avoid commenting on other's behaviour in discussions, but given that it has been brought up, I would like to reccomend everyone calm down and avoid getting emotionally involved in what is, in the grand scheme of things, a detail, if one we want to get right. Lastly, I would like to remind Neve that editors here come from a variety of backgrounds. Differences in how we see things are inevitable and positive. Different things are obvious to different people. Careful explanation and trying to understand the background of what people are saying is often more productive than accusing people of not having read one's arguments. All the best! Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, although there is no doubt in my mind that my argument carries minimal weight.

  • Option #1 defeats the whole purpose of the debate, we must all agree on the outcome. I personally am offended and mentally frustrated of it being the designation.
  • Option #2 is inconsistent with respect to de facto representatives versus de jure—e.g. Bremer and Michel Jeanjean being the President's Representative, etc.
    • Represented by – is an outright no-no, we must allude to their official title and not explain their duties.
    • Viceroy is commonly used, please see here. Readers would be really ignorant to not know what the word means, considering that the official title Queen's Representative of the Cook Islands is right beside it to the right.
    • The Cook Islands has never had a female QR—when this happens, if ever, we may have to reopen this case. Although I find it unlikely and seriously doubt editors would really care enough to actually change the designation.
  • Option #3 is an oxymoron, the more change equals the more noticeable inconsistency and inevitably will fall into the trap of WP:POV. I mean, surely Robert Mugabe is by common-sense a monarch, but is this politically correct? Unfortunately not—he is a President-in-name and we must abide by this recognition as such via encyclopaedic impartiality.

I understand your last points though, I promise to bear them in mind (thanks, Happysquirrel). I must concede that I am somewhat losing patience with this debate, although I plan to stick with my belief that simply changing Queen's Representative – with Viceroy – remains the right and only credible option until the end. Neve-selbert 04:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your thoughts clearly. I guess the usage of terms varies widely between countries. Up here in Canada, I have only heard Viceroy used in fantasy novels and history books. I certainly didn't know the word until I was in my teens. Your comment about issues with descriptive designations roles is an interesting one. I will have to seriously consider it. In either case, I think we need more people looking at this. Right now I see a number of us leaning towards changing a number of descriptors. Your warning about POV issues is valid, and I think we need to at least notify relevant WikiProjects that we are considering this. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I, for one, cannot really understand your arguments. 'President's representative' being used in the list along with 'monarch's representative' doesn't seem to be problematic in any way. Nor is using 'monarch's representative' wherever someone represents a monarch. Doing so eliminates redundancies ("Governor-general: [X], Governor-General of [Y]...", "Episcopal Co-Prince: [X], Episcopal Co-Prince of Andorra..."; there's no need for the repeated titles) and maintains consistency; having one entry use 'viceroy' is what would give unknowing readers the impression the Queen's Representative is a viceroy and in that way different to governors-general and representatives of co-princes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not at all. It certainly is problematic and involves the checking and autopsy of a great many articles, we must avoid the most unnecessary change. "Doing so eliminates redundances and maintains consistency"? I have to keep on repeating my arguments over and over again. Can you please have a look back at this discussion and read all the points made? I have debunked this already. "Having one entry use 'viceroy' is what would give unknowing readers the impression the Queen's Representative is a viceroy and in that way different to governors-general and representatives of co-princes.": Nope, not at all, any unknowing reader should use their brain. Each state is different, and the fact that there is a reputable source referring to the QR as a viceroy says something substantial. Besides, there is already a precedent. Read carefully: we use the Head of State&nbsp– designation for the Samoan O le Ao o le Malo (as his title is unintelligible)—yet this does not mean in any way, shape, or form that someone such as Vladimir Putin is not a head of state. There is no credible argument preventing the replacement of Queen's Representative – with Viceroy –. Neve-selbert 05:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


@Neve-selbert:: "I plan to stick with my belief that simply changing Queen's Representative – with Viceroy – remains the right and only credible option until the end.” If you are serious about this, then we can end this discussion here and now, because here you declare your unwillingness to reach a compromise (which you might feel free to go back on, in any case). But let’s hope it’s just another tantrum. If not, we can always leave the description as it currently is.
To sum up where we are: Miesianiacal said: ”'Viceroy' is not gender-neutral”, Happy Squirrel opined that ” This [viceroy] does not seem to improve the gender neutrality issue.”, and even Neve-selbert conceded that viceroy is ”not exactly” gender-neutral (though his/her subsequent statements effectively negated this insight). And I am also against switching to “viceroy”. So we have to settle on some other solution to turn the description “Queen’s representative” into something gender-neutral - if we feel the issue grave enough, and if we can come to an agreement.
Neve-selbert you wrote: “The Cook Islands has never had a female QR—when this happens, if ever, we may have to reopen this case.”. If this is indeed your opinion than we don’t need to deal with the original issue at all, because for the time being the description “Queen’s representative” is apt, since the current monarch is female. ZBukov (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you have heated up the oven again! Gas Mark 5 or higher? So, let us go through your "points" one-by-one:

If you are serious about this, then we can end this discussion here and now, because here you declare your unwillingness to reach a compromise (which you might feel free to go back on, in any case). But let’s hope it’s just another tantrum. If not, we can always leave the description as it currently is.

  1. "If you are serious about this": Think about it; you have proven your intelligence.
  2. "Then we can end this discussion here and now": Redundant.
  3. "Because here you declare your unwillingness to reach a compromise (which you might feel free to go back on, in any case": The compromises are entirely unsuitable, although since you have purposely ignored my argument you surely disagree. No compromise has compromised your position, at the expense of mine—this equals unfairness.
  4. "But let’s hope it’s just another tantrum.": This abuse does not deserve a response.
  5. "If not, we can always leave the description as it currently is": This will be advanced to WP:DRN if we cannot simply come to a solution.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

— Socrates

To sum up where we are: Miesianiacal said: ”'Viceroy' is not gender-neutral”, Happy Squirrel opined that ” This [viceroy] does not seem to improve the gender neutrality issue.”, and even Neve-selbert conceded that viceroy is ”not exactly” gender-neutral (though his/her subsequent statements effectively negated this insight). And I am also against switching to “viceroy”. So we have to settle on some other solution to turn the description “Queen’s representative” into something gender-neutral - if we feel the issue grave enough, and if we can come to an agreement.

"This [viceroy] does not seem to improve the gender neutrality issue": Only because you are refusing it to. You are trying to exploit an absurdly redundant point. Viceroy can be gender-neutral, we must respect the fact that there are two meanings of the word. You need to stop misusing debunked points.

If this is indeed your opinion than we don’t need to deal with the original issue at all, because for the time being the description “Queen’s representative” is apt, since the current monarch is female.

Sigh, it was just a trivial observation. The original issue must be dealt with. The time being can always change.

To sum up:

@Zoltan Bukovszky: Stop the personal attacks; let us all get down to unanimous agreement; let us examine each others' arguments. I have laid out my facts and arguments in full, with great attentiveness. Neve-selbert 11:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
...which we have all read and replied to. "Let us all get down to unanimous agreement; let us examine each others' arguments". Sounds very nice and conciliatory, but how does this relate to your earlier statement that your suggestion is "the right and only credible option"...? So I'm afraid your mere disagreement does not "debunk" it. Everybody who joined the debate so far came to the conclusion that "viceroy" is not a good solution here. How many more do you need? ZBukov (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Autopsy:
...which we have all read and replied to.
With unanimous and concrete agreement? This is pure fiction and a slippery lie, and you know this absolutely full well.
Sounds very nice and conciliatory, but how does this relate to your earlier statement that your suggestion is "the right and only credible option"...?
"Very nice and conciliatory": Patronising statement and thus a response unworthy.
"But how does this relate to your earlier statement": It relates entirely, it is of my judgment that my option is the right one. This is merely an expression of opinion.
As far as debunking is concerned, three out of the four of us take the arguments against "viceroy" as valid and substantial.
Twisting the argument: untrue—please quote them ruling out Viceroy under any circumstances whatsoever with their concrete justifications.
So I'm afraid your mere disagreement does not "debunk" it.
Another pointless diatribe.
Everybody who joined the debate so far came to the conclusion that "viceroy" is not a good solution here.
Many more, especially considering the fact that this everybody that you talk about are simply four people of hardly any substantial expertise on issues pertaining to designations such as these.
How many more do you need?
Quite a few more.
Neve-selbert 13:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Neve for bringing this to DRN. I have posted my assesment there. Just to clarify, while I try to avoid "always" or "never" statements, I cannot see myself supporting Viceroy as a viable option because 1)It is not in common usage in many parts of the world. 2)While it can be used in a gender neutral way, it still currently carries gender connotations. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Happysquirrel:
  1. It is in common usage with the New Zealand news media, see here.
  2. It carrying gender connotations should be defied, in my opinion. I believe it would be sexist to use this as an argument against—it would be akin to describing the President of the United States as the First Gentlemen of the United States. We already use Co-Prince's Representative as a designation per Andorra as we are aware that the title is unlikely to change should a female be elected President of France. The same, I believe, also applies here. Viceroy should be proven concretely as a gender-neutral title. On vicereine (here) OED has the first definition of the word for the wife of a viceroy and 1.1 has the female viceroy definition. The fact that the former is first, I do believe, carries a lot of weight indeed.
Thank-you. Neve-selbert 14:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so you all know, my semester has started and I just don't have as much time anymore. I will be logging off for at least a week so don't wait for responses from me. I hope this gets sorted out. All the best to all of you. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Use Viceroy, it's short & neatly compact & as I understand it, can also be gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Reasons why all three participant of the above debate (Happysquirrel, Miesianiacal and myself) chose to prefer „Monarch’s representative” over „viceroy” include the following.
- Since there is a proper word, "vicereine", to mean either the wife of a viceroy, or a female viceroy, this inevitably renders “viceroy” somewhat loaded in gender terms, even if some would use it in a gender-neutral way. Therefore it does not solve the problem we are dealing with.
- And “viceroy” is that it used to be an official title (e.g. the leader of British India was titled viceroy, see Louis Mountbatten or Archibald Wavell), therefore it could give rise to misunderstandings if used as a generic description.
- Viceroy seems to be used in different amounts and in different ways in different parts of the world.
- Viceroy is fundamentally a masculine form, which can also be applied to women.
- The description of the Cook Islands' head of state is 'monarch', therefore "Monarch's representative" is more consistent with that, than introducing a rarely used word (viceroy).
Apart from the above debate you can see a (failed) DRN about this question at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_131#Talk:List_of_state_leaders_in_2015 ZBukov (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe it's might be best to hold an Rfc on this dispute. I'm sure you will all agree, that a local consensus is impossible to reach. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Zoltan Bukovszky is purely attempting to brainwash. As far as he is concerned, my arguments in favour are worthless.
Debunking the myths and half-truths:
Since there is a proper word, "vicereine", to mean either the wife of a viceroy, or a female viceroy, this inevitably renders “viceroy” somewhat loaded in gender terms, even if some would use it in a gender-neutral way. Therefore it does not solve the problem we are dealing with.
Rejected This remains a redundant point and a red herring. We are legally able to refer to comediennes and actresses as comedians and actors without any confusion or offence—why should viceroy be any different? Of course, individually we could use the word vicereine to refer to female viceroys, although this would be mostly viewed as anachronistic in the same way as calling a female governor a Governess is.
And “viceroy” is that it used to be an official title (e.g. the leader of British India was titled viceroy, see Louis Mountbatten or Archibald Wavell), therefore it could give rise to misunderstandings if used as a generic description.
Rejected The title that was officially used by Mountbatten and Wavell had actually been Governor-General and Viceroy and not just Viceroy on its own, albeit only informally. We already use Governor-General – as a generic description anyway. This remains another vexed point.
Viceroy seems to be used in different amounts and in different ways in different parts of the world.
Rejected Nope, another red herring. The Cook Islands is unique in having a Queen's Representative rather than a governor-general due to their lack of sovereignty. The Queen's Representative is referred to as a Viceroy in the New Zealand media.
The description of the Cook Islands' head of state is 'monarch', therefore "Monarch's representative" is more consistent with that, than introducing a rarely used word (viceroy).
Rejected Yet another red herring, again: consistency is not the issue here. A representative is a representative, and that is that—most readers and editors will be well enough to use their common sense and understanding to realise this. Viceroy is not a "rarely used word". This remains absolute hogwash. The term has been used along media headline via the press in New Zealand & this should be apt enough. The "consistency issue" is without substance and would lead to a Titanic scenario of drastic proportions—breaching WP:POV guidelines in the making.
Again, he keeps on bringing up the same arguments of which I have debunked hundreds of times. An RfC should be avoided, IMO. Neve-selbert 01:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sticking with supporting Viceroy. I personally have no intentions of taking this dispute to Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, someone would have to be pretty oversensitive or gullible to be brainwashed by rational arguments presented in written form. :)
As Neve also admitted, if there is a word (vicereine) that means either wife of X or female X, than X can’t really be gender-neutral. Furthermore I have not seen female government officials being referred to as Governesses ever (prove me wrong!), so the presumed analogy does not stand.
Viceroy was used on its own only informally? Well, I guess you can’t really dismiss the official gazette as informal. So please familiarize yourself with King George’s 1938 decision to substitute „Viceroy and Governor-General of India” with „Viceroy” in certain official documents (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34527/page/4238). And since there is no female version of Governor-General, there is no analogy here. Therefore the rebuttal has been debunked.
The above reply to the observation about the usage of ”viceroy” did not reply to the argument being made. There is a pretty strong similarity between the status of the Cook Islands and Jersey, which is another example where the Queen’s representative is not titled Governor-General. (And on the other hand there were countries which had governors-general when they were not independent, like Sudan, Nigeria or Australia). As it was explained several times during the debate, referring to the current "Queen’s representative” as viceroy is indeed apt for the time being, since the current incumbent is male, just like for the time being "Queen’s representative” is also apt for the same reason (since the current monarch is female). But using a generic description for only one member of a group and not for the rest is needlessly and unreasonably inconsistent.
I maintain that consistency is indeed very much of an issue here. If we make some change to the article, it should preferably be done with a view to the nomenclature employed in the rest of the article. "A representative is a representative, and that is that—most readers and editors will be well enough to use their common sense and understanding to realize this." That’s exactly why I trust that "Monarch’s representative” will be straightforward and evident for every reader regardless of their location in the English-speaking world or outside it.
I believe we could do without Titanic-like hyperbole in a(n ideally) rational discussion about which phrase to use in a Wikipedia article. And let me quietly remind of the fact that the basis of the (needlessly exaggerated) disaster scenario is also the need for consistency.
With or without an RfC, currently we do not have a consensus on this issue (and not even a majority), with three editors proposing "Monarch's representative" and two supporting "viceroy". Therefore the least contentious course of action is leaving the article unchanged. ZBukov (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Here we go again, then. And even for the umpteenth time, let us go through your counterpoints again:
Well, someone would have to be pretty oversensitive or gullible to be brainwashed by rational arguments presented in written form.
You misrepresented the facts via disregard of the opposing argument, i.e. mine. I have practically always used the power of persuasion while at the same time referencing the opposing view and thus discrediting it within the points I had made. You did not do so and you simply represented poor arguments already deflated by myself. That—in my view—is quasi-reeducation.
Viceroy was used on its own only informally?
Ah, for crying out loud(!). I said that on its own it was used informally. The full title was Viceroy and Governor-General of India. By it being commonly shortened it to Viceroy, this could be seen as informal as interpreting President of the Government as Prime Minister in regards to how Spain does things. Could you please, at least, name me one female viceroy (with the actual and official title of Vicereine) in history, if any? If you can do so, I concede to your contradiction.
There is a pretty strong similarity between the status of the Cook Islands and Jersey, which is another example where the Queen’s representative is not titled Governor-General.
Yes, but there is a key difference here. The Bailiwick of Jersey is a British Crown dependency and thus all power theoretically goes to The Crown (of which it is dependent upon). And the head of the Crown is the Queen, Elizabeth II. It would be incorrect to refer to the viceregal representative in the Bailiwick as a Viceroy as this negates her power and influence somewhat—in a purely de jure sense. Naming the VR as Lieutenant General gives us the imaginary sense that he is simply second-in-command to the Queen, whom is de facto also the Governor of Jersey as well as being the Duke of Normandy. Another thing to point out is that Jersey is considerably less sovereign than the Cook Islands are, namely that they subjected to the Crown in a much closer sense than the Cook Islands.
And on the other hand there were countries which had governors-general when they were not independent, like Sudan, Nigeria or Australia
That was then and this is now. They were in-fact colonies however. There are no colonies at present headed by Elizabeth II. In regards to colonies and sovereign states alike, Governor-General is indeed an acceptable and accurate term. The Cook Islands are neither a colony nor a sovereign state.
As it was explained several times during the debate, referring to the current "Queen’s representative” as viceroy is indeed apt for the time being, since the current incumbent is male, just like for the time being "Queen’s representative” is also apt for the same reason (since the current monarch is female).
Again. If we can refer to an actresses and comediennes as either actor or comedian collectively, there should be nothing wrong with referring to "vicereines" as Viceroy. You cannot possibly designate the Queen as King –. I will not delve into the Dutch issue, which has similarly proven its irrelevance.
And using a generic description for only one member of a group and not to the rest is needlessly and unreasonably inconsistent.
We refer to the Samoan head of state as Head of State – while Barack Obama, also a head of state, is designated as President –—while still being regarded through common sense as indeed a head of state. I notice that you fail to take issue with this; I do indeed hope you do not try to make one out of it. This has been the case for a long time, and Viceroy – should heed this example as such.
I believe we could do without Titanic-like hyperbole in a(n ideally) rational discussion about which phrase to use in a Wikipedia article. And let me quietly remind of the fact that the basis of the (needlessly exaggerated) disaster scenario is also the need for consistency.
If you continue to regard my Titanic scenario as and I quote: "exaggerated hyperbole", then why do you refuse to confute it? It was a perfectly rational concern that I made. "Consistency"—as you refer to it—is simply a red herring and pure distraction on your part. A genuine concern was raised, yet you failed to poke proper holes into it—let alone the two other editors allegedly on your side.
With or without an RfC, currently we do not have a consensus on this issue (and not even a majority), with three editors proposing "Monarch's representative" and two supporting "viceroy".
That is correct. Although, Happysquirrel did write the following (DRN): While I agree that changes should be consistent, I can think of a few arguments: 1. Governor Generals form a large body with consistant descriptors, thus their descriptors should not be changed. 2. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Only change those with obvious issues. 3. Standard descriptors do not account for the diversity of these positions. Hence we should give up on consistency and just abreviate titles. I don't want to get into a huge debate here as I don't think it is allowed :) but I just wanted to point out why question #2 is worth discussing. These are in fact the arguments I thought of when writing the list of starting suggestions for #2. Make of this what you will, although I do not believe she is exactly firm in supporting Monarch's Representative – as the alternative. Neve-selbert 11:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Ad 1) I have not misrepresented the facts. Your power of persuasion failed to work on the three of us after we familiarized ourselves with all the arguments. And if your understanding of "re-education" is that one does not agree with your opinion (and consequently does not promote it), then you’d do well to look up what the word actually means.
Ad 2) Here you can see Vicereine as official title being used in the London Gazette: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38161/supplement/25 So I have proved that both Viceroy and Vicereine were used as official titles. Therefore your argument is thus debunked. Case closed.
Ad 3) ”Monarch’ representative” is an adequate description for both the Lieutenant-Generals and the Queen’s representative (and also for the Governors-General, Co-Prince’s representatives, and for regents).
Ad 4) The above characterization of the Cook Islands’ status (neither a colony, nor independent) is also true of the Crown dependencies.
Ad 5) To stick with your analogy, the existence of the title "Queen” means that "King” cannot be regarded as gender-neutral. And in the same way, since there is "vicereine”, consequently "viceroy” cannot be gender-neutral (on the other hand "monarch's representative" is completely gender-neutral, beacuse the word "monarch" has no female version).
Ad 6) On the point of "head of state" I have already replied to you a long time ago, that if you want to do it, I support replacing "president” as a description with "head of state”. You appear to have ignored this.
Ad 7) I have also replied to this a week ago. The reason why I find your "Titanic-disaster” scenario unfounded is that the the scope of the application of ”Monarch’s representative” can be defined clearly. Improving the articles’ internal consistency by standardizing the descriptions of various monarch’s representatives does not necessitate that any change be made to the descriptions of leaders of colonies, protectorates or temporarily occupied countries. And it still remains the case that you deny the relevance of consistency in one sentence, yet the basis of your Titanic argument is the need for consistency. You should make up your mind.
Ad 8) That was a nice (but hopeless) try in casting doubt on the clarity of Happysquirrel’s opinion. Her penultimate message is crystal clear and leaves you no space to misconstrue: "Just to clarify, while I try to avoid "always" or "never" statements, I cannot see myself supporting Viceroy as a viable option".
That’s it. ZBukov (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That's it.?

  • I asked for a Vicereine regnant, not a consort. Thus, the case has not been closed (a cheeky attempt, mind you).
  • Monarch's Representative – is not an adequate description and I will prevent any attempts to implement this as an alternative.
  • The Cook Islands are an associated state, and unlike Niue, they have their own representative of the Queen. They are unique in this regard, and they are associated to Elizabeth II through her New Zealand crown rather than her British one. This is a key case in point, we should not be mixing up her legally distinct, sovereign crowns.
  • We are perfectly able to refer to comediennes and actresses as comedians and actors collectively without any confusion or offence. Again, why should viceroy be any different?
  • Replacing President – with Head of State – will break precedent, and hence this should not even be considered. This is simply a provocation.
  • Please remember that consistency in a literal sense is itself not 100% consistent. Monarch's Representative – would breach a neutral point-of-view in elevating the status of monarchical representatives above those of presidential representatives, etc. Your insistence on fawning over the former while disregarding the latter(s) is an inherent bias, IMO.
  • She has neither proven her ironclad confidence in either Monarch's Representative – or Viceroy –.

It most certainly is not. Neve-selbert 05:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ad 1) Did I give you an official vicereine? Yes, I did. Did you give me a single „Governess”? No, you did not. So that previous argument of yours trying to draw an analogy between Governor and Viceroy has been debunked. And an example of vicereine in either of its two meanings is sufficient for this logic to work: If there is a proper word for wife of X or female X, than X cannot be completely gender neutral. I don’t have to give you a Queen regnant (rather than a Queen consort) to demonstrate that the existence of „Queen” means that „King” cannot be completely gender neutral.
Ad 2) When someone is the official representative of a sovereign, than which part of „monarch’s representative” is not adequate to describe their position…? Look who is getting belligerent and threatening after having accused me of just that! When you write sentences like this, are you waiting and hoping for your opponent to respond in kind, or what? Your latest strategy seems to be alternating between making threats and appealing to sympathy (on my personal talk page) by claiming some emotional attachment to the topic. Let me quietly remark that so far „Monarch’s representative” is the stronger contestant, and you don’t own the article so as to „prevent”. And you have already started both a debate and a DRN to push „viceroy” through, to no avail.
Ad 3) The Crown dependencies’ status is also unique. The phrase „viceroy” would be equally useless for the purpose of distinguishing between different crowns, just as the current description „governor-general” does not identify the crown in question. In the descriptions we don’t differentiate between different kinds of presidents or monarchs either. So I cannot see the merit of this latest counter-argument.
Ad 4) You are just repeating your point here. I feel no need to repeat mine about the gender relation between King and Queen. Nota bene, in viceroy and vicereine "roy" and "reine" means "king" and "queen" in (Middle) French. Therefore this parallel is much more relevant than the one with actresses and comediennes.
Ad 5) Provocation? :) Which one of us brought it up? Let me help: it was not me. If you want to improve the articles’ consistency on that point too, you have my support. Just like you have my support in your original quest to replace the description „Queen’s representative” with something completely gender-neutral („monarch’s representative” that is).
Ad 6) If „monarch’s representative” breaches neutral point-of-view in any way, how would „viceroy” not do the same? What is different between them in that sense? And I don’t see why or how it would „elevate” the people concerned if we standardize the description of their offices. And it still stands that if you want to take a carte blanche to disregard consistency, then don’t use consistency as the basis of your very argument in support of your preferred phrase! :)
Ad 7) She has not proven her confidence in either? You are right. She wasn't any more clear than stating that she is "most in favour" of one, and "cannot see herself supporting [the other] as a viable option". And you can look up which statement belongs to which phrase. Are you sure you want to embarrass yourself by trying to distort other editors' opinions for your purposes, when everyone can read their original statements here for themselves...? Though after having falsely and baselessly claimed about me that I "seem to be admitting defeat", it seems you will stop at nothing. ZBukov (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Did I give you an official vicereine? Yes, I did. Did you give me a single „Governess”? No, you did not.
Still does not apply. You need to give an example of an actual, female viceroy with the official title of Vicereine—not a wife of a male one serving—for me to concede to your contradiction. I will also have you know that on the top of the page of Governess, it states:
The term Governess can also be applied to a female Governor.
  • If there is a proper word for wife of X or female X, than X cannot be completely gender neutral.
Not necessarily. Actresses and comediennes can get commonly referred to as actors and comedians without any disrepute. Your point about Middle French is redundant, this is the English Wikipedia and not the French one—i.e. we don't follow their rules as we have already made our own ones up to go with them.
  • When someone is the official representative of a sovereign, than which part of „monarch’s representative” is not adequate to describe their position…?
If we were to elevate monarchical, de jure representatives above those of presidential, de facto ones, we are breaching WP:NPOV. Monarch's Representative – would involve too much change and would cause confusion and ambiguity and hence a breaching of guidelines.
  • Nota bene, in viceroy and vicereine "roy" and "reine" means "king" and "queen" in (Middle) French. Therefore this parallel is much more relevant than the one with actresses and comediennes.
Does not necessarily have to apply the same in English, let alone British English. The English have indeed borrowed quite a number of words from the French, although this does not mean that the French continue to enforce their own rules. Masculine and feminine distinctions are vastly more distinguishable in French than they are in English.
  • If „monarch’s representative” breaches neutral point-of-view in any way, how would „viceroy” not do the same?
Of all the monarchical representatives of Elizabeth II, the Cook Islands QR is actually referred to as a Viceroy, more so often than any of her other representatives. How often are they referred to as Monarch's Representative in the media and press? Viceroy currently gains 675,000 results on Google Books, while Monarch's Representative gains a mere 1,290 results. We should be safe in using a more commonly-used term, IMO.
It is about time we kept it down to earth, for once.
  1. Your Monarch's Representative – has no real chance of succeeding for reasons aforementioned.
  2. Viceroy – however, creates the least change and the least confusion and contention between the majority readers and editors alike. Neve-selbert 22:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you quote a single example of ”Governess” being used as an official title for a state leader? You did not. Is there proof that ”Vicereine” is an official title? There is. Therefore your presumed analogy between Governor and Viceroy simply does not stand.
As I said the analogy between Queen and Vicereine is much more relevant than the one with comediennes. No wonder you failed to react to it, merely dismissed it as ”redundant” and instead just repeated your less relevant analogy with comediennes.
Somehow you failed to explain how standardizing descriptions would ”elevate” the people concerned. And ”monarch’s representative” is not a bit more confusing or ambiguous than either ”governor-general” or ”viceroy”. (Do you still remember your position of calling for readers' intelligence not to be underestimated? :) )
You haven’t explained how ”viceroy” would respect neutral point-of-view, if ”monarch’s representative” somehow breaches it.
”Monarch's Representative – has no real chance of succeeding” and ”viceroy” creates the least contention? Have you been following this debate?  :) Out of the four original participants, three voted for ”monarch’s representative” (so it can already be said to have succeeded), and on the other hand here you are going on about ”viceroy” for the fourth week in a row! That is no chance and no contention for you.
Well, if the number of Google hits is your only consideration, then we should stick to ”Queen’s representative”, since Elizabeth II is most of the time referred to as ”Queen”.  :) And it’s remarkable how much your opinion has shifted to keep up with your position in the debate. When you were pushing for an invented phrase with zero Google hits (”monarchical representative” that was), you had this to say in its defence: "The Google suggestion is redundant, the popular search engine is not taken as gospel. This matter is about a designation not a title." Apparently the importance of consistency or Google can be so volatile... :)
Keep it down to earth? Well, this one might actually be relevant. It says: "Don't attempt to set up compromises that require a problem editor's cooperation if the problem editor is clearly uncooperative." I will give it some thought. ZBukov (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said the analogy between Queen and Vicereine is much more relevant than the one with comediennes.

Nope, it most certainly is not. This is the English language, and not the French, and considering the fact that Viceroy is more commonly-used suo jure as a gender-neutral term[1] and Vicereine is more commonly used to indicate a viceroy's wife.[1], your point is still pointless. "No wonder you failed to react it"? Some hypocrisy here.

Somehow you failed to explain how standardizing descriptions would ”elevate” the people concerned.

If we just changed the designations of representatives of monarchs it could indeed be seen as a monarchial bias. What of the colonies of France? They may have abolished their monarchy back in the olden days, but they have still clung on to their colonial heritage. Why alienate their representatives from the British ones? All because of the French Revolution?

And ”monarch’s representative” is not a bit more confusing or ambiguous than either ”governor-general” or ”viceroy”.

It is absolutely. All that I am suggesting is for us to change the designation and only the designation of the representative of the Queen in the Cook Islands. What you are suggesting is: changing the designations of all the representatives of monarchs. We would thus be confusing different types of representatives with each other. It would be almost like designating Mugabe as Monarch – instead of President –, even though for all practical purposes he is percievably the former.

(Do you still remember your position of calling for readers' intelligence not to be underestimated? :) )

Do you not vary the intelligence of the average reader with an expert or most amateur one?

You haven’t explained how ”viceroy” would respect neutral point-of-view, if ”monarch’s representative” somehow breaches it

Again, for the latter we would be changing the designations of only representatives of monarchs, disregarding the representatives of presidents, the UN Secretaries General, and de facto reps. The Viceroy option would be normally neutral as (unlike Monarch's Representative –) we would only be changing the designation of one office—not multiple ones from seperate walks of life. As the title Queen's Representative is not otherwise styled in the same sense as the Samoan O le Ao o le Malo, Viceroy – will be a fine alternative to use—as this is a commonly used description of the person(s) of the state in question.

Have you been following this debate?  :)

You know what, I certainly have not ;) (joke). Only five people have so far commented on this dispute, a far cry from the numbers of people in the dedicated (albeit defunct) WikiProject, let alone the numbers of other users, et al on Wikipedia.

Out of the four original participants, three voted for ”monarch’s representative” (so it can already be said to have succeeded)

 No, wrong. Happysquirrel abstained and proved her confidence in neither of both options. Miesianiacal was a perfect sceptic and seemed to side with you (although he did support changing the designations of all the representatives of heads of state, unlike yourself). GoodDay dropped by after the DRN imploded and "voted" for the alternative that I support. So, technically, it is a draw, i.e. 2–2.

Well, if the number of Google hits is your only consideration, then we should stick to ”Queen’s representative”, since Elizabeth II is most of the time referred to as ”Queen”.

If that is the case, then would you mind changing her designation from Monarch – to Queen –? I do wonder.

And it’s remarkable how much your opinion has shifted to keep up with your position in the debate.

I can turn as my view on the subject evolves, unlike a a certain somebody—up to a point that is. And I have long since reached that point.

you were pushing for an invented phrase with zero Google hits (”monarchical representative” that was), you had this to say in its defence:

Touché. Alright, I was wrong. I was wrong to bring about and propose Monarchical Representative –. I admit that, you were absolutely right to oppose it. I should have come up with Viceroy – right up at the very beginning in the first place. I was wrong and you were right on this on 31 December. Google hits do indeed matter, and I retrospectively realised to agree with you on this single matter—having started taking it seriously and auspiciously from then onwards.

Apparently the importance of consistency or Google can be so volatile... :)

I refer to my points above. I have learned from the misjudgement I made on the Google issue and, per the consistency issue: this has already proven to be an overwhelmingly contentious and contradictory POV to further discuss with you.

I will give it some thought.

And, so far, we both have not offered an actual compromise. Likewise, I will give it some thought too.

So: All in all (again) progress on this issue has continued to be sluggish.

  1. ^ a b "vicereine". Retrieved 22 November 2014.

Postscript: Also, just for the record: articles Governor-General of Saint Lucia, Governor-General of Grenada, etc. style their current female representatives as "Viceroy" and not "Vicereine" in the infobox on the right-hand corner. This is also the case with Governor of Anguilla and among a few others. Neve-selbert 11:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So where are the examples of "Governess” as an official title, being used in the sense of female Governor, please?
"Monarch’s representative” is absolutely not more confusing or ambiguous than "governor-general” or "viceroy”.
The sovereign of the United Kingdom is most often referred to as "Queen”, in the case of Monaco it’s "Prince”, for Luxembourg it is "Grand Duke”, in Japan it's "Emperor", for Oman it is "Sultan", for Qatar it's "Emir", and in Malaysia it is "Yang di-Pertuan Agong". Yet a generic noun ("monarch”) precedes their names, which encompasses all of them. So we are not applying to them the terms that are most widely used in their respective cases. And the reason why that is neither misleading, nor incorrect or ambiguous is that their correct titles are displayed right after their names, and the generic description gives the reader an idea of the kind of office they occupy (thus indicating that in a sense they form a group). Therefore we are not "confusing” the different types of monarchs, but using a neutral, generic label. And presuming that this "elevates” these heads of state above the others is simply a misunderstanding.
Happysquirrel stated that she is "most in favour of Monarch's representative" and she "cannot see herself supporting Viceroy as a viable option". Evidently she abstained to the same degree as I was "admitting defeat"! And if to your mind her sentences mean that she was fence-sitting on our issue, than wishful thinking seems to hijack your perception of reality to an alarming degree, once again.
You did not reply, so let me ask again. When you make such belligerent statements like promising the "prevent” the change which you dislike, or threaten to impose your preference on the article by a deadline (without having managed to build a consensus for it), do you expect me to answer in the same manner? (I'm sure it would be convenient for you by giving the semblance that we are suffering from a similar level of fanaticism - which you repeatedly claim.) And to your mind, is this an acceptable way to conduct a debate...?
I get the impression that your sole understanding of "progress”, "cooperation" and "compromise" vis–à–vis this debate is when people capitulate or acquiesce to your will. And this implies that you are after victory, not solution. If you keep calling on me to give up, be realistic (or alternatively to let you get away with just this one) and walk away, then why don’t you follow your own advice in this...? ZBukov (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
So where are the examples of "Governess” as an official title, being used in the sense of female Governor, please?
It is likely that the Governess of the Children of France would not exactly apply to you, so I am prepared to give way on this one; Governess happened to be the first thing to pop in my head—although I am still yet to see examples of Vicereine as an official title, being used in the sense of a female Viceroy.
The sovereign of the United Kingdom is most often referred to as "Queen”, etc.
Green tickY Precisely, and I agree with your statement. They are all regarded collectively by most of the press and media as monarchs. The same cannot be said collectively and conjointly of "Monarch's Representative". In unique cases there should be unique exceptions, e.g. the Samoan head of state being referred to as Head of State and the Cook Islander viceroy being referred to as Viceroy.
And if to your mind her sentences mean that she was fence-sitting on our issue, than wishful thinking seems to hijack your perception of reality to an alarming degree, once again.
Question? Explain this to me as if I were a 5-year-old. AFAIK, she voted neither in favour of both options., hence an abstention. My "wishful thinking seems to hijack your perception of reality to an alarming degree" is simply your intimidatory opinion. It remains probable that sense and good judgment will prevail at the very end.
When you make such belligerent statements like promising the "prevent” the change which you dislike, or threaten to impose your preference on the article by a deadline (without having managed to build a consensus for it), do you expect me to answer in the same manner?
No, I do not. I was attempting to try and speed up the debate somewhat—although I am seriously considering backtracking my comments on 31 January to something more agreeable, as I am growing reluctant to engage in any type of edit warfare. We must come to an agreement, and it does not necessarily have to perfectly please both of us. This cannot go on and forever and ever.
If you keep calling on me to give up, be realistic (or alternatively to let you get away with just this one) and walk away, then why don’t you follow your own advice in this...?
We need to consider whether or not this issue remains as equally important and vital between the two of us. If you could let me get away with just this one, I would certainly owe you one—it would mean the world. This is a sticking point for me, and I remain certain that Viceroy – is the best alternative we have, and I hope to continue to support and pursue such an option. I remain attached to my decision and position.
If you could reconsider my postscript above, I will be very grateful. Regards. Neve-selbert 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Okay, so the supposed analogy with Governor is out of the way. But I haven’t yet seen you comment on the analogy between king and queen, and deputy-king (vice-roy) and deputy-queen (vice-reine). And to moot another analogy, it’s easy to see why some find it sexist when the word "chairman" is used for women. And although in the past it was indeed applied to women, today it is increasingly regaded as sexist, therefore not fully gender-neutral.
As for the postscript, the word "viceroy" was added to the Wikipedia article about the Governor-General of Grenada on 1 May 2015 by an editor called Thommy9. The articles on the Governor-General of St Lucia and the Governor of Anguilla were amended to that effect by Pigsonthewing on 22 February 2015. Neither editor quoted any source. Having checked on Google, I failed to find a single official source referring to either of these ladies as "viceroy". Any comments on that, please?
Other than simply charging "too much change" and some explained "confusion", you haven’t explained this: When someone is the official representative of a sovereign, than which part of "monarch’s representative" is not adequate to describe their position…?
"In unique cases there should be unique exceptions"? There is only one Emperor, and only one Grand Duke in the world, yet it is perfectly appropriate to describe them as monarchs. And it is evident that that the word "viceroy" is not unique to the Cook Islands official. Therefore, as I wrote earlier, even if we settled on "viceroy" (or decided to keep "Queen's representative"), it would still be applicable to every Governor-General. Therefore even if Tom Marsters is the only person whose official title is "Queen’s representative", he still fits perfectly into the category of "monarch’s representative", warranting no unique exception.
As for Happysquirrel, I simply don’t understand what you are talking about. When there is a choice between two options, and she says that "I cannot see myself supporting Viceroy" and that she is "most in favour of Monarch's representative", then what kind of interpretation of those sentences tells you that she abstained on the topic? Let’s imagine that she declared herself to be most in favour of viceroy and unable to see herself supporting monarch’s representative. Would you also have dismissed that as abstention?
"We must come to an agreement, and it does not necessarily have to perfectly please both of us". Yet you confirm time and again that you will not tolerate your suggestion not winning? Looks like "some hypocrisy here."
"If you could let me get away with just this one, I would certainly owe you one" After you backed out of a compromise, and you made a patently baseless allegation about me for your own gain, I’m sorry but you have credibility issues. But it is irrelevant anyway, because I don’t think an editing matter centered on gender-neutrality and consistency should depend on the exchange of personal favours. ZBukov (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
But I haven’t yet seen you comment on the analogy between king and queen, and deputy-king (vice-roy) and deputy-queen (vice-reine).
The analogy is unclear. The word(s) are from archaic French dating back to the early 16th century—from vice- in place of + roi king / reine queen. This remains quite a poor analogy somewhat as—although technically correct—in modern English this really hardly applies. Australia's Dame Quentin Bryce was referred to as just a Viceroy in 2008, as was Canada's Adrienne Clarkson in 2004.
it’s easy to see why some find it sexist when the word "chairman" is used for women
It may be, although I will note that is a slightly different situation. Unlike "roy" and "reine" (both exclusively from the French language), "man" almost exclusively traces its origins to English, so the Chairman misunderstanding would be much more likely to raise alarm than Viceroy. Also, I find it hard to understand why some would find it "sexist". We already use the word man to refer to all of mankind, in any case.
And although in the past it was indeed applied to women, today it is increasingly regaded as sexist, therefore not fully gender-neutral.
This remains risible in my eyes. Janet Yellen was referred to as Chairman as recently as February 2014. Compared to referring to a prince consort as King this is hardly offensive at all.
When someone is the official representative of a sovereign, than which part of "monarch’s representative" is not adequate to describe their position
It would be seen as informal way as referring to them, unlike the Andorran co-princes, they have their own official titles. Nobody even refers to the royal representatives as Monarch's Representative anyway, not in a formal sense (at least).
And it is evident that that the word "viceroy" is not unique to the Cook Islands official.
It is also evident that that the words "Head of State" is not unique to Samoa official.
Therefore even if Tom Marsters is the only person whose official title is "Queen’s representative", he still fits perfectly into the category of "monarch’s representative", warranting no unique exception.
We have within our midst a foggy prospect. We cannot simply raise our glasses to Monarch's Representative – without taking note of the other representatives. That would be undeniably inconsistent and would breach NPOV.
then what kind of interpretation of those sentences tells you that she abstained on the topic?
Stating that she is most in favour of Monarch's representative does not equal 100% confidence. She may have changed her mind in the meantime, as this was indeed written before she expressed her doubt about it at the DRN.
Yet you confirm time and again that you will not tolerate your suggestion not winning?
We are not referring here to a prize that can be won, we are aiming for an alternative which will cause and create the least controversy. The Viceroy – alternative is not necessarily perfect in my view, although it will do due to the fact that it is generic designation (in the same sense as Head of State –) which has been proven to be used suo jure as a gender-neutral term.
After you backed out of a compromise, and you made a patently baseless allegation about me for your own gain, I’m sorry but you have credibility issues.
I profusely apologise if I had offended you, although please take note of the following:
  1. I only backed out of the Monarch's Representative – option once I began to realize the issues pertaining to designations of the other, non-royal representatives listed.
  2. If I have done this, I am truly sorry. I withdraw any "patently baseless allegation"(s), and I hope we can move on from any hostility.
  3. I am trying to be seen as credible as I possibly can. I could absolutely say the same thing about you, of course. I appeared credible to GoodDay, and hopefully many others come what may.
But it is irrelevant anyway, because I don’t think an editing matter centered on gender-neutrality and consistency should depend on the exchange of personal favours.
This discussion has been going on for almost a month now; nobody seems to care about it apart from me and you. I don't think an apocalypse would occur if we just tweaked Monarch's Representative – into Viceroy –. I must reiterate that Viceroy really can be used as a gender-neutral term when used collectively—unlike when used singularly where I get and understand your point. If you decide to give way just this one time on just this one issue, I will return the favour, I promise this.
There must be some sort of deal we can make over this. If you do give way on this issue, I swear that I will give way to you on any other dispute or issue you see fit in future. Neve-selbert 03:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As said: "I failed to find a single official source". And that remains the case. What you linked were two instances of usage in the media (and it isn’t widespread there either), while I gave you official state usage of "vicereine".

"We already use the word man to refer to all of mankind, in any case."

Well, that's the very case in point...

"This remains risible in my eyes."

This might say something about your eyes then... And this makes it rather ironic that you started this whole debate in order to improve gender-neutrality. (Practical tip: In order to test whether some phrase is sexist or not, check if the opposite would sound acceptable, natural and non-offensive, e.g. a mixed group of males and females referred to collectively as "chairwomen" or "businesswomen", or the term "queen" being extended to kings.)

"Janet Yellen was referred to as Chairman as recently as February 2014."

Racist, ageist and homophobic media content has also been produced as recently as February 2014.

"Compared to referring to a prince consort as King this is hardly offensive at all."

Referring to a prince consort as King has nothing to do with either sexism or gender. That is not offensive but simply a factual error (and a flattering one at that).

"Nobody even refers to the royal representatives as Monarch's Representative anyway, not in a formal sense (at least)."

To borrow your own words: "This matter is about a designation not a title."

"It is also evident that that the words "Head of State" is not unique to Samoa official."

So what? Twice you mooted standardizing the description of heads of state, and both times I expressed my support. This is no reason not to apply a new description consistently to everyone in scope, if we are thinking about introducing a new description to the article.

"We cannot simply raise our glasses to Monarch's Representative – without taking note of the other representatives."

Yes, we can. We can improve the articles’ consistency on this matter, without having to do everything at once. And, as I mentioned above, it is you who is horrified by the prospect of standardizing the descriptions of heads of state, not me... As I said, the scope of application of my proposal can be defined perfectly clearly.

Let me repeat my question. "Let’s imagine that she [Happysquirrel] declared herself to be most in favour of viceroy and unable to see herself supporting monarch’s representative. Would you also have dismissed that as abstention?"

"which has been proven to be used suo jure as a gender-neutral term."

I know perfectly well that this is your opinion. No need to repeat it each time, in bold, italics and underlined. I does not convince me any better.

"I am trying to be seen as credible as I possibly can."

Was this your aim when you alleged to Robert McClenon without any reasonable grounds whatsoever that "The user Zoltan Bukovszky seems to be admitting defeat", just so that you can gain some support to enforce your idea...? And have you been distorting Happysquirrel’s opinion, and questioning the other editors’ competence in order to gain credibility...?

"I don't think an apocalypse would occur if we just tweaked Monarch's Representative – into Viceroy –."

Nor will it result in apocalypse if we exchange "Queen’s representative" for "Monarch’s representative", or if we leave the article as it is. Apocalypse takes a little more than that.

And if you mean what you wrote that our agreement "does not necessarily have to perfectly please both of us", than it could just as well be you, not necessarily me. ZBukov (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

while I gave you official state usage of "vicereine".
Rejected: You only gave me official state usage of "vicereine" as a ceremonial, consort title. Unless you can find me an actual Vicereine representing a monarch, your point remains absolutely moot.
Well, that's the very case in point...

There are also cases where a distinct female form exists, but the basic (or "male") form does not intrinsically indicate a male (such as by including man), and can equally well be applied to any member of the profession, whether male or female or of unspecified sex. Examples include actor and actress; usher and usherette; comedian and comedienne. In such cases, proponents of gender-neutral language generally advocate the non-use of the distinct female form (always using comedian rather than comedienne, for example, even if the referent is known to be a woman).

— Gender neutrality in English
Funnily enough, the French language was not even mentioned once in that article.
And this makes it rather ironic that you started this whole debate in order to improve gender-neutrality.
Improve, not perfect. It is simply impossible to call a male regnant as a Queen, and vice versa with females and King. That was my only concern.
Racist, ageist and homophobic media content has also been produced as recently as February 2014.
Seriously? I wonder why you find this so offensive. Bloomberg is a quality media outlet, and allegations of racism, ageism or even homophobia within their quarters are generally unfounded. Can you uncover any "allegations" pertaining to Bloomberg of such discriminatory behaviour? I think not; you are overreacting to nothing.
To borrow your own words: "This matter is about a designation not a title."
Ah, but we are alluding to their official titles, an important thing to remember. Hence the capitalisation of the designations.
This is no reason not to apply a new description consistently to everyone in scope, if we are thinking about introducing a new description to the article.
It is about time you respected precedent. Samoa has worked fine up to now and the Cook Islands should be no different.
As I said, the scope of application of my proposal can be defined perfectly clearly.
Nope, it cannot. That would be an imitation of whitewashing on your part. NPOV would certainly be breached if Monarch's Representative – were implemented. "Perfectly"? Your sarcasm reeks; it would be the absolute opposite. As far as I am concerned, your alternative is the most toxic and dangerous (and if not, apocalyptic) alternative we have. For the sake of god, it cannot be an option.
Let’s imagine that she [Happysquirrel] declared herself to be most in favour of viceroy and unable to see herself supporting monarch’s representative. Would you also have dismissed that as abstention?
 Yes, I certainly would have. I refuse foul play, and I would have wanted her to have as much confidence in Viceroy – as GoodDay currently has begun to have.
I know perfectly well that this is your opinion.
For crying it loud, it is not just "my opinion". Your purposely dismissive attitude is of no help to this dispute. Read the lead opening section of Viceroy for yourself (an article I have never even edited), and come back and say this is simply "my opinion". Source?
Was this your aim when you alleged to Robert McClenon without any reasonable grounds whatsoever that "The user Zoltan Bukovszky seems to be admitting defeat", just so that you can gain some support to enforce your idea...?
In retrospect, I regret writing that—although it was of my impression that you were simply not bothered any more. I happened to be wrong, and I readily accept and rectify that.
And have you been distorting Happysquirrel’s opinion, and questioning the other editors’ competence in order to gain credibility...?
On the former, I have not been distorting her opinion in any way—you are acting hysterical. I am casting doubt on the certainty of her opinion, as they conflict somewhat across this dispute. And on the latter, I am not attempting to gain "credibility" by "questioning the other editors’ competence". Only five editors are involved in this dispute, and only two (you and me) are actively involved. The fact that it has only been me and you arguing for more than 120 hours says a lot, IMO. I question how dedicated they actually are in this dispute.
Apocalypse takes a little more than that.
It would be akin to falling metaphorically off a tightrope. Your alternative is poison—"without having to do everything at once" further complicates matters and would be equal to an editing holocaust of hundreds of articles—and in my own personal view a malicious attempt to make this disagreement ever the more complicated.
than it could just as well be you, not necessarily me.
Likewise. It could just as well be you Zoltan, and not necessarily me. We are both stumbling building blocks in our own right.
Also: We need to take a look on the likelihoods. You must admit it is as quite unlikely that a woman would ever occupy the role of QR due to the cultural and political traditions of the country—by the time they move on from that, they are extremely likely to have become a sovereign state in their own right. There has never been a woman QR: you arguing over sexism over a purely hypothetical scenario. Viceroy can be gender-neutral when used collectively and it is time you accepted that and stopped your provocative sulking. Neve-selbert 02:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

ZBukov, I think it's pretty clear that 'monarch's representative' has the most support and 'viceroy' does not. Unfortunately, there's no compromising here, as far as I can tell; it's either one or the other. I'd therefore say we should go ahead and change the various descriptors to 'monarch's representative' and, if Neve reverts (which is likely), then we move to the next step in dispute resolution, which is, I think, RfC. This particular argument now is going to settle on nothing (unless Neve relents). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see this being resolved, it may be time for a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


@Neve-selbert: "your alternative is the most toxic and dangerous (and if not, apocalyptic) alternative we have. For the sake of god, it cannot be an option.", "Your alternative is poison", "would be equal to an editing holocaust of hundreds of articles", "open your eyes and heed my warning", "Iceberg, right ahead", "would result in a recipe for disaster and could quite possibly wreck the articles in question"
And I am acting hysterical, right…? :)
"I refuse foul play"
Yes, we have witnessed your commitment to fairness…
"we are alluding to their official titles"
No, we are not. The description is about their position not about their title.
"It is about time you respected precedent. Samoa has worked fine up to now and the Cook Islands should be no different."
If we are making some change, I refuse to accede to maintaining an existing inconsistency and replacing one gender-loaded term with another merely for the sake of, well... change (and Neve's unquenchable desire to "win").
"the scope of application of my proposal can be defined perfectly clearly." - "Nope, it cannot."
The fact that you couldn't (or wouldn't) doesn't exactly say whether it can be done or not.
"I happened to be wrong, and I readily accept and rectify that."
How do you rectify that?
"I question how dedicated they actually are in this dispute."
The frequency of their intervention, or even their level of interest in this particular debate says nothing about the weight of their arguments. I don’t think you are any more right just because you have been forcing your opinion about this matter every day since 31 December...
"it is time you … stopped your provocative sulking"
Well, well. I’m wondering who it is that considers threats an acceptable way to speed up the debate, and alternates between pleas and tantrums.
@Miesianiacal: I tend to agree.
@GoodDay: This is what you wrote on Sunday: "I personally have no intentions of taking this dispute to Rfc". And when I asked you for comments, you declined to offer arguments for and against the two suggestions and merely stated that in your opinion "viceroy" can be used gender-neutrally. But currently the majority opinion here does not concur with that. ZBukov (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In these last 4-5 days, I've realized that there's not going to be an agreement reached at the article-in-question. Therefore, an Rfc is the best route to take. The alternative would be edit-wars & resulting blocks. Nobody wants that to happen. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: What on earth is it with your constant ellipses? Just get to your point and make a full stop.
  • Yes, we have witnessed your commitment to fairness…
    • Absolutely, it is a 2–2 draw and no changes should be made to the article(s) until our dispute is over.
  • No, we are not. The description is about their position not about their title.
    • Same difference.
  • and alternates between pleas and tantrums
    • "Pleas and tantrums": of course; belittling and ridiculing the opposing side seems to be an active habit of yours. This further just goes to highlight your dismissive and crude attitude to this discussion. Your vulgarity is contemptible.
Your refusal to accept that Viceroy can indeed be used gender-neutrally remains one of the most paramount obstacles on the road to solution. Neve-selbert 09:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: "it is a 2–2 draw"?
Funny how conveniently you "forgot" about Happysquirrel. :) I would say I appreciate your sense of humor if it wasn't clear that wishful thinking is seriously occupying reality here...
"The description is about their position not about their title." - "Same difference"
When the description says "monarch" for an emperor, prince or grand duke, than it's clearly not a contracted version of their official title. Neither is "head of state" a short version for "Chairman of the House of Representatives" or "First Chairman of the National Defence Commission", BUT a description of the position they occupy.
"no changes should be made to the article(s)"
It is you who is desperate to make a change to the article, not me.
"Your refusal to accept ... Viceroy ... remains one of the most paramount obstacles on the road to solution"
Or you could swallow your pride and accept "Monarch's representative", in which case your original issue is resolved - if gender-neutrality was indeed your real concern in the first place, rather than imposing on the article whichever of your suggestions you happened to be forcing that week. ZBukov (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Zoltan Bukovszky: First off, the emoticons aren't funny.
  1. Stop trying to wind me up. You know full well that she did not prove her total confidence in either options.
  2. The designations, descriptions—whatever you want to call them—indirectly hint at their official title, in most cases anyway.
  3. "Swallow my pride"? For the sake of god. And yet you ask me why I cannot follow my own advice.
  • My knowledge of this issue evolved over time:
    • I have come to the conclusion that Monarch's Representative cannot be implemented as it would result in numerous inconsistencies and in-turn would breach WP:NPOV.
Happysquirrel is no longer an active part of this dispute until she returns from her holiday. Until she can defend her case with absolute certainty, I would suggest we side-line her temporarily once we reach RfC. For all we could know, she could have changed her mind in the meantime. Neve-selbert 10:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You know full well that Happysquirrel unequivocally expressed her opinion about both options, so no need to wait for any further input from her (she is "most in favour" of monarch's representative, and "cannot see [herself] supporting Viceroy as a viable option"). And it would beggar belief that you seriously try to misinterpret her stance, were it not for the fact that you have a lot to gain by doing so.
"And yet you ask me why I cannot follow my own advice." You should better be prepared to do what you are exhorting others to do. ZBukov (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. Absolutely. That was precisely what I meant by saying "neither proving confidence in either options" in plain English and hence 2–2.
  2. It is not a matter of having anything to gain. You yourself would have quite a lot to gain if we were at 2–3. You cannot deny that, can you? Neve-selbert 10:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
If I may. In the article Viceroy, it's explained that the term Viceroy can be used as gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: What she wrote in plain English means that she gave a clear and unequivocal "no" vote to viceroy and a "yes" vote to monarch's representative. But it's clear why you are motivated to try to cast doubt on it. Is it not a matter of having anything to gain, when you expressed that "it would mean the world" to you if you could get away with "viceroy" and offered me favours in return...? :) ZBukov (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I will never convince you, will I? Of course not, as I would have done so by now. It is not a matter of having anything to gain. A 2–2 means an equal draw and nobody has an advantage. It all depends on the upcoming Rfc, now. Neve-selbert 10:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"nobody has an advantage"? That's clearly not true, yet still neither of us imposed the majority suggestion on the article, either when it was three opinions against one, or now that it's three against two.
So after a lost debate and a failed DRN now you are trying an RfC?
Your conduct has already provided a clear answer, but let me ask you, what is your main concern? To solve the problem that "Queen's representative" is not gender-neutral, OR to impose "viceroy" at all cost?
By the way, if you are honestly unsure as to what Happysquirrel's sentences meant, you can ask the other editors here what they make of it. ZBukov (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your conduct has already provided a clear answer? I think not.

"What is my main concern"? Is this a trick question? Look, I am open to any ideas of others who comment at the Rfc. That is all I am prepared to say on this matter, for now, that is.
  • I have already responded to and debunked your arguments against time and time again, and a wider audience is likely to be more open-minded.
  • GoodDay was the one who opened up the Rfc earlier, not me. Funny why you would think that. Neve-selbert 13:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_state_leaders_in_2015/Archive_2&oldid=711832922"