Jump to content

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015/Archive 3

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

RfC: What should be the gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands royal representative?

Consensus for status quo. Withdrawn by creator and editor requesting RfC. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 13:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Cook Islands
Shall we use:

  • A) Queen's Representative - status quo, actual title of position
  • B) Viceroy - a suo jure gender-nuanced term
  • C) Monarch's Representative - gender-neutralising the first word of status quo

Comments

  • I support Monarch’s representative, because the rarely used work ”viceroy” is a gendered term, since it has a female counterpart (vicereine). And using a male term to women can be seen as sexist, therefore insufficiently gender-neutral. (Just ask yourself if the opposite would be okay, i.e. to use vicereine to male office holders.) And Monarch's representative fits more consistently into the List of state leaders articles, because the description used for the Cook Islands' head of state is "monarch". And "Queen's representative" is only applicable in case of female monarchs. ZBukov (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment How is it that more descriptors would have to be replaced if 'monarch's representative' were chosen versus 'viceroy'? All instances of 'governor-general', 'regent', 'co-prince's representative', and maybe others would have to be replaced, no matter what's chosen. Also, perhaps 'viceroy' shows up so often in Google Books because, until the late 20th century, every representative of a monarch (save for a few regents, if one even wants to consider them viceroys) has been a man. Even through the late 20th and early 21st centuries, most governors-general (if one wants to consider them viceroys) are men. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In the same sense that the Head of State – descriptor is used for the Samoan O le Ao o le Malo (as his title is unintelligible). No matter what's chosen? Absolutely not. Only the descriptor for the Cook Islands QR needs replacing and nothing else. Viceroy – can be used as a gender-neutral title, this has already been proven time and time again. And since there is unlikely to ever be a female QR in the CI, this strengthens the case for Viceroy even further. Neve-selbert 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't get to set limits on the extent of this matter and that train's already left, anyway; this has gone beyond the Cook Islands. The discussion above shows it to be so. The DRN discussion shows it to be so. There is no argument for inconsistency and there's no argument for redundant repetition. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Total nonsense. This matter can only involve the Cook Islands; nobody has booked any tickets on any train—this is purely your personal opinon. An argument for inconsistency? See below, this is a reminder of what I had partially written on 17 January:
(outdent)
Possible consequences of Option B
Frankly, if we opted for Monarch's Representative – we would have opened a dreadful can of worms, and things would start getting overly messy and complicated. We would be stuck inside a painful dilemma, a spiralling loop. Easy question: what for the Governor of Sint Maarten? Easy answer: Yes, I would believe you suggest changing this too. But yet, here we are, outside the safety net of The Queen and into the realm of another, different type of monarch. Sure, no problem, we can easily change this too. But then, this indicates a bias. Not only monarchs have representatives in their differing territories; why on Earth should we put monarchs on a pedastool? Surely, the W&T administrator is a President's Representative –? Absolutely, you will reply, we shall have to change this too. But then, we realise something icky:
  • What exactly of the de facto representatives? Is it policy to place de jure ones on a pedastool?

Oh dear. This is where things get complicated.

  • Perhaps we could draw some analogies to what happened to the Titanic and Iraq. It seems odd, but if you think about this in the long-term: how on earth could we have been this stupid?

Note #1: Although the two analogies are not entirely similar, they both prove a fundamental error in human logic.

  1. You know—on face value—nothing really seems to be wrong with Monarch's Representative –. In fact, it just seems about perfect. I mean, why not—to match Elizabeth's designation—simply replace the word Queen with Monarch? Voilà. Job done.
  2. So there we set off on our journey, and make the preparations for regime change. We will get in, and we will get out.
  3. We seem to be pretty confident with this outcome—it makes sense, it is an easy answer solving a quick problem with hardly any serious qualms.

Note #2: This is precisely the short term. What of the long-term? Ah, sugar.

  1. You see, this is where we heed my warnings of this iceberg. We cannot simply just change the designations of those under the British monarch, but also of the Dutch one too. Simple, job-done. We shall do this too.
  2. Iceberg, right ahead. You see, now we are in the situation of changing the designations of the representatives of not only monarchs, but also presidents as well. This is a somewhat panicky move, as Monarch's Representative – simply would not do. Even you would not dispute this. So quickly, to avoid casualty, we change the designations of not only monarchs but of the other heads of state too, such as those under the French President with President's Representative –.
  3. But, what of the UN Secretary General? Hard-a-starboard. This is beyond complicated. For consistency, if we are to connect another designation with another, merging them together, we will have to implement this everywhere. This includes representatives of the S-G. As of course, any reader or editor would be misled. They may be believe that this UN Special Representative represents his or herself on a freelance basis, without anyone to report too—unlike the representatives of the other heads of state. What are we to do? This is a dead-end.
  4. And then, bam. Collision. The de facto representatives. This is the final blow. If we choose to regard Paul Bremer as the President's Representative –, then what of puppet leaders? If we are to go all the way back to World War II, was Philippe Pétain not a representative of Adolf Hitler? Was he or not? In favour of him being so, Hitler did actually personally select him—would it be a bit of a stretch to call and label him as Fuhrer's Representative? And, there. We have sunk.
}}
  • Simply put, this is why I believe the Monarch's Representative solution would malfunction and hence result in catastrophe. We would have editors coming up and down from everywhere enquiring "Is this X person the representative of this X person?". And so on, and so on, and so forth. We would be unable to cope. This is a can of worms, there can be no doubt. Redundant repetition? Another nonsense, it absolutely vital and necessary to group different representatives together, e.g. X number of governors-general, an X number of regents, etc. It is useful to know how many different offices of governors-general there were in 1966 compared to 2016—we would be completely blind to this information if we changed all the descriptors. Again, this is a matter for the Cook Islands. We would not be having this conversation if it were not for their constitutional situation. The issue of changing all of the royal representative designations instead of just that of CI is equal to a red herring.
  • For the umpteenth time, using Viceroy to refer to either gender is suo jure accepted as a gender-nuanced. Neve-selbert 04:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I've made my points. Your rebuttal has no effect on them; 'president's representative' works perfectly fine and the rest, are, as I said, false comparisons. Others can read what I've written here, above, and below and draw their own conclusions. You clog up discussions with the kind of over-inflated diatribe you've just dumped above, so, I won't give you reason to continue doing so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You are purely dismissive of my arguments. Furthermore, my points were hardly a "kind of over-inflated diatribe", they were made clearly and thoroughly and are entirely legitimate concerns—albeit lengthy and thus collapsed. Your rhetoric evidently proves stupendous ignorance on this problem in particular, overlooking any possible problems on the path to solution in an idealistic manner. You haven't even bothered to specify which points were false comparisons—"all of them" is practically equal to "talk to the hand". Hopefully, other editors will be more open-minded and less pig-headed and dismissive. Neve-selbert 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
You can be certain other editors will see how you need to resort to false comparisons, red herrings, and, the classic refuge of the weak arguer, rudeness. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
That view is merely your own opinion. I am not being rude or pejorative, if you take it as this I apologise—although I, like yourself, would like to make my views clearly concise on this matter in respect to reasonable reservation. Neve-selbert 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Monarch's representative Firstly, it's the only term guaranteed to be gender neutral. 'Queen's representative' cannot be for obvious reasons. 'Viceroy' is too uncertain. Strictly, it is a male-gendered term; 'vicereine' is the female equivalent. It has apparently been used in mass media to denote a female representative of a monarch, but, that doesn't make the use accurate. I don't think it's up to Wikipedia editors to decide it is rightly applicable to female monarch's representatives.
Secondly, the question for the RfC has falsely presented the extent of this matter. It isn't just about the entry for the Cook Islands, as whatever's decided for the monarch's representative there will have to be applied to all monarchs' representatives throughout the list. That will avoid confusing inconsistency and eliminate the needless repetition of descriptor and title (Governor-General: Fred Fredson, Governor-General of Samosa) currently seen in the list. It also raises the question of whether or not the representative of a Co-Prince of Andorra can be considered a viceroy. Is a regent also a viceroy? Some have argued that governors-general should not be considered viceroys. Using 'monarch's representative' will sidestep that unknown. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment The question for the RfC has not been falsely presented. This issue should be just about the Cook Islands, it will not apply anywhere else. If it did happen to apply elsewhere, we would inevitably over-complicate matters. We would be stuck in POV dilemma over which state leader is a representative and which one is not. It is not a matter of saying "well, if they are unofficial—who cares?": that is still a POV; we already display Taiwan as a sovereign state despite their dispute with China. For example, there are those who would rather designate Canada's David Johnston or Australia's Sir Peter Cosgrove as De facto Head of State – rather than as Monarch's Representative –. We must maintain WP:NPOV. Using his official title as the descriptor maintains and enforces the neutral POV. Of all her representatives, the Cook Islands representative is referred as Viceroy the most frequently; so, therefore, only his descriptor can and should be changed. Neve-selbert 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
See above. There's no confusion about who's a representative and who isn't. Your examples are false comparisons. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
False comparisons? That is a delusional assertion, on your part. See above, there is clear potential for complete confusion. Neve-selbert 04:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: They both plan on complicating this Rfc by using the red herring of the other royal representatives' descriptors as well as the one at the Cook Islands. This issue was never bought forth initially to discuss the descriptors of all of the representatives, just the one at the Cook Islands. We should be only talking about the issue pertaining to that country, not all of the others. Neve-selbert 05:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The Rfc's question concerns the Cook Islands & therefore the Cook Islands should be soley susceptable to any potential changes. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It pertains to all representatives of a monarch (and maybe representatives of presidents, too). Perhaps you should've read through all the prior discussion first. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it's something, that'll be settled here, if/when we get input from outsiders. Just the four of us, won't be able to. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It is a red herring, we should be discussing the Cook Islands and only Cook Islands—this is why the whole discussion started in the first place, because of the issue pertaining to the Cook Islands. Neve-selbert 23:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I would rather that this Rfc focuses on the Cook Islands. There's little that's going to be accomplished overall, until we get outsider input. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I hate dealing with you directly, but, the question needs to be asked, at least for others to think about: If we don't consider the whole list now and 'viceroy' is chosen, how will there ever be consistency in the list unless 'viceroy' is imposed for all representatives of a monarch, whether it's appropriate to do so or not? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've no problems dealing with you directly & never did. I'm content to agree with what the rest of you decide, concerning the scope of this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You will likely think this frustrating, but, are you even aware of your penchant for flip-floppery? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC))
I get a tad annoyed, when you push your 16 are equal PoV. Thankfully, that isn't the case here. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Then, it's "I've never had a problem dealing with you" except "when you push your (as I call well-sourced facts I don't like) POV". Got it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT must be respected & that means we must always reflect the 'vast' majority of sources. The vast majority of sources say the United Kingdom. PS- Let's get back to this Rfc, alright? You may continue this 'side-bar' discussion at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Eech, more red herring. No thanks. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If we cannot settle on a solution, we can still leave the status quo intact, but there is no justification for deleting relevant and important information (e.g. every Governor-General). I also agree that if we make a change to the description of the Cook Islands official, than the description should be applied consistently to all those who are in scope. I simply see no reason whatsoever to apply a generic term to only one member of a group, and not to all of them. Neve's repetitions are indeed tiresomely redundant (and apocalyptic) and contrary to the editor's fears using a proper description is definitely not a slippery slope into endless confusion. I have read his objections many times during the past months, and I find the unfounded. ZBukov (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I acknowledge that if the Rfc is closed/expires as no consensus, then the status quo is maintained. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I view the case for Viceroy – similar to that for Regent –, as they are both semi-regnal titles and are in his/her right (suo jure) gender-nuanced and hence neutral and balanced to a sufficient extent. ZBukov is already purposely dismissive against any of my arguments in a semi-automatic mode anyway, his responses do not surprise me. I wholly reject and repudiate any suggestions that my arguments are either "repititions", "redundant" or "contrary"—these are all partisan and biased assertions and thus far inadequately confuted. The case for "consistency" is also distorted & NPOV has never been more relevant, e.g. why Monarch's Representative – and not De facto Head of State –? Both are tilted to one side, and neither is sufficiently neutral to please everyone, i.e. monarchists and republicans alike respectively. The case for Viceroy should only apply to the Cook Islands as this is where any generic term referring to a representative other than their official title would cause the least offence and controversy. I am quite ascertain on finding other editors that are reasonably less obstinate, and I am confident that there will be many of those who are fairly receptive. Neve-selbert 22:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
For the last time, the "monarch's representative vs. de facto head of state" matter is a false dilemma. Whether a governor-general is a de jure head of state, defacto head of state, or neither is a debate that operates fully accepting a governor-general is the representative of the monarch. No one—monarchist, republican, or neutral—has argued a governor-general does not represent the monarch and, if someone has, their opinion is so fringe as to not be worth considering here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps. Although would it really be a stretch to call the governors-general De facto Head of State –? It depends on the way you look on it, I guess. It is not a false dilemma, you are just being dismissive. For example on Google Books, De facto Head of State garners 303 results in respect to just Canada, while Monarch's Representative garners slightly less with 295 results. Make of this what you will, although it is hard to deny that the Governor-General is indeed the de facto head of state and—regardless of their representative status—I understand that this assessment may not please everyone. Neve-selbert 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Assuming the scope of this Rfc is expanded to all the entries. Having the governor-general of Australia described as the Head of state's representative or 'De facto' Head of state, may be a potential problem. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would anyone not dismiss a false dilemma? The who's head of state argument is not relevant to this discussion. We are looking specifically at descriptors and 'de facto head of state' has never been put forward as a suggestion; precisely because it's contentious. 'Monarch's representative' is not, because no one doubts governors, representatives of co-princes, and the Queen's Representative represent the monarch.
Anyone trying to replace the descriptor 'monarch's representative' with 'de facto head of state' would be reverted for the same reason as any replacement of the present descriptor 'governor-general' with 'de facto head of state'. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It is a dilemma to be considered; after all, there is nothing remotely official with the term "Monarch's Representative" as it is a made-up and informal description. Some may indeed argue that those governors, representatives of co-princes, and the Queen's Representative rather represent their own country on behalf of the monarch(s), instead of the other way round. This is a legitimate view—as in a sense, all state leaders are representatives of their countrymen. So, in that sense, we are referring to representatives of a representative. Again, it depends on how you look at it, hence POV. Neve-selbert 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Describing governors-general as head of state is contentious, illogical and is definitely not part of the debate about finding a gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands official (which is turn naturally raises the question of the consistent application of the new phrase). ZBukov (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
To infer that it would be "illogical" to describe governors-general as heads of state is utterly your own POV. The Australians would agree to differ, in fact. Besides, we have already found a gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands official, i.e. Viceroy, of which you are continually in denial over. For further clarification, I am not for the De facto Head of State option—although disregarding it in favour of Monarch's Representative is in my view an acutely one-sided position to take. Neve-selbert 10:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
If no-one is suggesting De facto Head of State, than we might as well stop discussing it here, and then I need not bother anyone here by explaining why I infer that it is illogical. Neve, you are perfectly well aware that both Miesianiacal and myself are strongly and consistently of the opinion that "viceroy" is not gender-neutral enough. Repeating it another twenty times will not change that, so you could save some space here. ZBukov (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed quite interesting that no-one has suggested it. And, if I may indeed follow your rhetoric: Zoltan, you are perfectly well aware that both GoodDay and myself are strongly and consistently of the opinion that "viceroy" is gender-neutral enough. Repeating that it is not another twenty times will not change that, so you could save some space here also. Neve-selbert 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then I guess at this point we can declare the debate to be over, and in the absence of any agreement no change will be made to the existing description of the Cook Islands official. ZBukov (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The debate is already over. The whole point of this RfC (Stage 3) is to get some outside voices, i.e. for consensus. In the absence of that, the next option would be RfM (Stage 4)—which could take months. Neve-selbert 06:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the question here is not about changing the official title as that is simply a matter of factual correctness. This discussion is about the description that precedes the names in the List of state leaders in XXXX articles, which differs from the title and instead is a generic description of the kind of office the person occupies. ZBukov (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: Per points above, the title is safe from any changes. We are merely debating exactly how to describe the office of the titleholder. For example, we designate Kim Jong-un with the descriptor of Communist Party Leader –, preceding his name and official title of First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, etc. We are currently debating an equivalent scenario with the representative of Elizabeth II in the Cook Islands. Sorry for the confusion. Neve-selbert 06:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I realised that, but I see no reason not to use Queen's Representative here. I disagree with the assertion that this list uses "generic descriptions", otherwise why would it differentiate between the various names used for heads of governments in different countries (e.g. Prime Minister, Premier, Head of Government)? Number 57 08:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: The controversy around Queen's Representative is mostly due to the misleading interpretation that the monarch represented is always going to be a Queen—thus inevitably creating issues once a King eventually accedes. Both alternatives now attempt to rectify this problem. In response to your question, e.g. the official title of the Prime Minister of Spain is President of the Government, although he is designated as a "Prime Minister" beforehand—in order to place him in the same league as other Western parliamentary leaders such as Cameron, etc. Neve-selbert 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading at all – after all, the word "Queen" is used in the constitution. When it's a King, we can change it to King (just like they'll have to change the constitution). Although I can see that some people are clearly heavily invested in getting this changed, I really don't see the problem here. Number 57 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Number 57: I would mention that in the Constitution of the Netherlands (Wikisource), the monarch is referred to solely as King—unlike in the British one. Neve-selbert 10:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
My sense is this whole debate is predicated upon the unavoidable death of the Queen. When Charles accedes to the throne of New Zealand, the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands will become King's Representative. There doesn't seem to be a mechanism for the list to deal with that. Hence, the search for a gender-neutral descriptor. I hadn't considered until now, though, that there isn't presently a way for the list to deal with the change in title. Even if we choose a neutral descriptor, what happens with "Monarch's representative: Janice Stratosphere, Queen's Representative" once Charles becomes king and Janice becomes King's Representative?
Regardless, though that's a valid question that needs addressed, I maintain there should be a neutral and consistent descriptor for representatives throughout the list for a) consistency and b) avoiding pointless repetition. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I assumed that it was understood by all, that the moment Elizabeth II passed on, Queen's Representative would be changed to King's Representative. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The practice for indicating intra-year title change in List of state leaders in XXXX articles is to display the new title, and add a remark noting the previous title and the date of change. For example see the president of Honduras in the List of state leaders in 1980 article. Though I must add that since the decision on the Cook Islands official's title is laid down in their constitution, I would think that the decision to change it from Queen's representitive to King's is for them to make, not us. ZBukov (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a title change for the President of Honduras in 1980. Nonetheless, if there's a way to deal with changes in title, then, all the better. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If you move your cursor over the little index number right after 'Provisional President of Honduras' the remark will open in a window. I can't attach a screenshot here, sorry. :( This is the raw text:
Oh, it's in a note. I just assume inline tags that look like the one next to Garcia's name are references, not footnotes, which usually (or should) use different inline tags. Anyway, I guess the question's been addressed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought "Vice-regal representative" was pretty standard in former British countries, in Australia that is how both the Governor-General and state Governors (all of whom have direct links to the Queen) are referred to. Hope that helps. Cheers, Peacemaker67(click to talk to me) 06:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I had myself initially supported Viceregal Representative –, although it soon became apparent to me that the term Viceroy has the exact same meaning and is more prevalent (with 690,000 results in Google Books) than Vice-regal Representative (with 909 results). Moreover, the term Viceroy is specifically used more frequently than Vice-regal Representative in the Land Down Under with 491 results compared to 491 results in the Commonwealth for Vice-regal Representative. Neve-selbert 06:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axles about that, viceroy isn't in common use in Australia. In fact, I have a bit to do with Government House where I live and I've never heard HE referred to as a viceroy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Having had a further look, this may be indeed be true with Australia and the sovereign Commonwealth realms—although, in respect of the Cook Islands and the sole subject of this dispute, the term is in common use within the dependent territory. Vice-regal Representative gains practically zero results in regard to the Cook Islands. Neve-selbert 08:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Though the very aim of this debate is not finding the most popular phrase used for the royal representative in the Cook Islands, but to find a gender-neutral and generic description for the office. Simply judging by popularity, the description for Elizabeth II should be 'queen' as that's how she is referred to most often. However the office itself of the head of state of the UK ("and of Her other Realms and Territories") is not limited to one gender, that's why a gender-neutral term ("monarch") is used before her name (which is duly followed by her proper title). And this is what we are trying to apply to the Cook Islands (where the official title is Queen's representative), and that's why some of us find "viceroy" insufficiently neutral. ZBukov (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sigh, more and more artificial nonsense. What part of "The term vicereine is sometimes used to indicate a female viceroy suo jure, although viceroy can serve as a gender-neutral term.[2] Vicereine is more commonly used to indicate a viceroy's wife.[2]" could stump the average, sane and rational human being? There has never been a female Queen's Representative anyway, so who would honestly take offense at this alleged vulgarity? Suo jure should be good enough. Neve-selbert 09:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Does the lack of precedent for equal opportunities for women imply to you that gender-biased language is all right and should be continued? This is exactly the kind of oppressive, male chauvinist bias which gender-neutral language is fighting against. And defending an allegedly gender-neutral suggestion ("viceroy") with acquiescence to inequality is an eyebrow-raising piece of logic that casts doubt over the very suggestion it is meant to support. (By the way a uniform, gender-neutral term – monarch – is used even for those countries where women cannot inherit the throne by law, like Liechtenstein and Japan.)
"Artificial nonsense"? This kind of arrogance is nothing new from you, but it is still firmly outside the boundaries of civilized debate. Please either improve your standards or leave the discussion. ZBukov (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
My point still stands. Viceroy is non-offensive to most human beings—would you object if I went around town asking random women if they felt offended by it?—and your opposition to it remains utterly absurd, you are imitating some sort of a feminazi, up to this point. The fact that the term Viceroy can be used to refer to women, in the same sense as Governor for Governesses (as in The term Governess can also be applied to a female Governor.) should be enough. Think The Lion King for one second; was that sexist? Why was it never The Lion or Lioness King? The disambiguation article Lioness already has Lion as its first redirect suggestion, and Vicereine already redirects to the Viceroy article. Some women even personally prefer in a sense to be known by male equivalents of such words as it improves their feeling of an equal footing on par with men at occupations. Please either improve your standards or leave the discussion. Shall one laugh or cry? This is overwhelming hypocrisy at its height. Weren't you the one accusing me of "throwing a tantrum" and thus belittling me as a toddler beneath you? What a phony case in point. Furthermore, our constant wrangling should have ended in the prior discussion, this is the RfC now, we need to hear what other people think, without subjugating them. Neve-selbert 01:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Goodness, you do ramble.
Your point doesn't stand. You just uttered it and acted as though it's god-given truth not requiring any supporting sourced and sound argument.
"Vicereine: 2: a woman who is a viceroy".[1] 'Viceroy' is not definitively gender-neutral. 'Monarch's representative' is. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"Ramble" is your opinion. I have yet again made another case in point, over and over.
  1. "Viceroy: A ruler exercising authority in a colony on behalf of a sovereign." [2]—not exactly "A male ruler ", simply "A ruler "
  2. "Vicereine: 1: The wife of a viceroy." [3]—the first and foremost definition, it is a term more frequently used to refer to a vice-regal wife.
Monarch's Representative is a lopsided attempt versus De facto Head of State, they are both legitimate but fail NPOV. Viceroy doesn't. Neve-selbert 03:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Were you under the impression you'd disproven the Webster Dictionary definition of 'vicereine' that I quoted?
'De facto head of state' is still a red herring; one that gets ever more smelly each time you haul it out to clog up the discussion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
A red herring? Christ.
  • I have not attempted to disprove anything; these are two (subtly different) definitions in regard to the exact same word.
    • Moreover, there must be a reason why the dictionary definition you had quoted was second to the definition that I had subsequently quoted.
    • So thus, above all, the first and former definition is recognised prevalently versus the latter.
  • Ignoring a possible fourth option is quite futile, and your refusal to acknowledge such a COI equals your own biased stench to high heaven.
This discussion is due to be expecting some new, veteran arrivals in the coming days. People are tiring of hearing the same old voices. Neve-selbert 05:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: let me remind you of your above admission that you failed to find a single example of "Governess" as an official title being used for female governors (that is no say not in the sense of a woman caring for children). Discussion does indeed seem rather futile when you are happily ignoring even your own statements. ZBukov (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: Right then. So, on that note, let me also remind you that you failed to find a single example of "Vicereine" as an official title being used for female viceroys. Neve-selbert 15:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a red herring.
If you didn't disprove anything, it stands that 'viceroy' is not definitively gender-neutral. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The whole Monarch's Representative nonsense is practically a red herring in itself; you are being insincerely impertinent.
"Viceroy" is gender-neutral in the same way "lion" is. Would you find it sexist and politically incorrect for me to refer to a whole pride of them simply as "lions"? Or would you prefer the mouthful "lions and lionesses" or perhaps even the Latin name Panthera leo? This is getting ridiculous. I am banging my head against a brick wall. Neve-selbert 08:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: Well, no wonder you are banging your head against a brick wall when you reached the point of conflating animals and humans in trying to apply the categories of sexism and political correctness to lions... The original debaters know your arguments only too well (as you cannot stop ranting about them for over a month now). They failed to convince us, so I don't think any further effort makes sense. I guess we could all spare the time of writing/reading about gender-neutral language being applied to lions. ZBukov (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Aha, well then. You refuse to acknowledge the comparison—as expected. Why? No answer. Ranting? My goodness. Was that the best word you could up with?—stop complaining about my tone while simultaneously being bellicose vice versa, hence avoiding being a hypocritical parody of yourself. Spare what time? How much time do you have to spare? Anyhow, I still cannot fathom as to how Viceroy is a sexist term. This remains to me patently absurd. You should spare your own delusion. Neve-selbert 09:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you have no idea how or why something would be sexist, than maybe you should not make suggestions on choosing a gender-neutral phrase... :D ZBukov (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is decaying beyond belief by the day; the word Viceroy is suo jure gender-neutral. There, that's the end of it. End of. Neve-selbert 13:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. :) ZBukov (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: You know, I was thinking the exact same question—perhaps we should personally invite individual editors with relative experience in the related WikiProject(s) to the discussion. Neve-selbert 03:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
My request for input from WP:WikiProject Politics has fallen on deaf ears, apparently. You're free to contact other WikiProjects and/or individuals. Be sure your requests are neutrally worded. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I have now contacted five apparent WikiTitans (selected via here). Neve-selbert 04:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Jolly good :) GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You forgot the greatest WikiTitan of them all — The Creator! Just post a notice, don't ask for his specific comment. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Queen's Representative - seeing as this is the only descriptive that is verifiable. Also, upon Elizabeth II's passing, it will be changed to King's representative & will likely remain so for quite some time under Charles III, William V & George VII. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Queen's Representative - concurring above with GoodDay, with Queen–King's Representative – to be used on the year the demise of the Crown occurs and King's Representative – thereafter. Neve-selbert 17:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No change - Use the actual titles. Governor-General for the New Zealand chap, Queen's Representative for the Cook Islands officer. If and when the Queen is replaced by a King, we can await the gazettal of new titles, so that we have information sourced properly. --Pete (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Section Break 1

  • My two cents I was invited here (see above) and I think that "monarch's representative" is the best option since it will be equally applicable in the case of female and male monarchs yet it isn't excessively cumbersome. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: It is absolutely cumbersome, it fails NPOV and is an ambiguous designation. See above, for more detail please. Neve-selbert 05:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert, don't bludgeon the discussion. You and the original page editors have had ample discussion above, now step away from the near-dead horse and let the rest of us form a consensus. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102: Okay, okey-dokey then. Although, how many users are required to form a consensus? Is there a minimum or maximum number? Neve-selbert 06:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
RfC's can be closed after:"
  1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly).
  2. It may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation.[3]
  3. The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time.
  4. It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor.[4]
The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. See WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS for details." - shamelessly stolen from WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Queen's Representative. Absolutely fail to see the problem here. Tom Marsters is the Queen's Representative. That's his official title. So why can't we describe him as the Queen's Representative? It's hard to imagine a more accurate description. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Individual titles can vary widely. The generic description gives the reader an idea of the kind of office the incumbent occupies. For example in the state leaders' lists the names of every emperor, king, queen, emir, grand duke, sovereign prince, sultan, etc are preceded by the description "monarch", and are followed by their proper titles. And since the office of monarch is not limited to females it is felt that "Queen" is not generic enough for a description, as the monarch will be a male the very moment Elizabeth II passes away. ZBukov (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • SQA for now Offends no one. "Vicereine" generally refers to the wife of a viceroy, and "viceroy" or its equivalents is quite dated as well, as it referred to a person with power to rule as the representative of any government. And either might be "gender incorrect" for the monarch or the office-holder, or both. Frankly "Crown Representative" would seem to be gender neutral for both the Crown and the Representative, and clearly covers the issues at hand IMO. Collect (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Collect:
And with all things considered, I personally believe that the status quo is unsustainable. Neve-selbert 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"Usually"? Seems I find several hundred usages in books using the term for governors-general etc. historically. The new 2011 "usage" is actually quite unusual. (from many and sundry sources: Each ruler dealt with the Crown Representative, the Viceroy, who was the highest representative of the British Crown, relations of the Crown with the Indian States through the Viceroy as Crown's Representative, A viceroy was the Crown's representative in the colonies , through the Viceroy, known as the Crown Representative., authority of the Viceroy as Crown representative , under the Viceroy who, for this purpose, was called the Crown representative, their letters to the Crown's representative, the viceroy, in Mexico City , No successful attempt can be made to define exactly the rights of the Crown's Representative to intervene, (used by many nations as the normal term, it appears), then to "governor-General" as being "more British" ... the prime minister, or premier in the case of a province, who communicates privately to the Crown's representative., There are very few cases where the Crown's representative (the governor- general or the governor) has acted against the advice of elected ministers, (Saint Lucia) the Crown's Representative was given the title of Governor General., The Governor-General, as representative of the Crown, is the chief executive and his ... As the Crown's representative he reports to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in London, in the name of the Queen by the Crown's representative, the Governor-General and on and on and on.
The term "Crown Representative" has historically been used as a title of a Viceroy or Governor-General by the UK, Spain and other nations, and is descriptive of his or her actual status.
[4] "As they always do for the Crown representative, they performed ...", even in current news articles. As I said, the use of "usually" for an odd use in the UK does not negate utility of this doubly gender-neutral term in general. Collect (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Collect: I do not object to Crown Representative being considered at all, although I am confused as to how this term is in any way better than Viceroy. And AFAIK, the representative in the Cook Islands has never been specifically referred to as the Crown Representative. I may be wrong—although nothing comes up in Google for that.
Well -- for a start, "viceroy" is not a term in much current usage at all, in any nation. Other than as a brand-name for cigarettes, that is, or some hotels or a butterfly. M-W: a person sent by a king or queen to rule a colony in the past . In short - why would we wish to use a rare and obsolete term here which would be of little use to readers? Collect (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Collect: Although again, the New Zealand media had referred to the QR as a Viceroy in a news headline from 2005. Neve-selbert 17:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I love your cite -- its very first sentence is "New Cook Islands cabinet ministers Tangata Vavia and Ngamau Munokoa have been sworn into cabinet by the Queen's representative Sir Frederick Goodwin." Did you miss that? Collect (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Collect: No, I did not miss that. Please may I remind you that we are looking for a distinct descriptor, and the fact that the QR is described as a viceroy in the headline is certainly worth taking notice of. We are not disputing his title. A similar situation can be ascribed to this article, describing the Queen as Monarch in the headline ("Monarch quotes from Bible to address a nation shaken by year of atrocities") while the first sentence is "The Queen used her Christmas Day broadcast to make one of her most overtly religious addresses to the nation in recent years." Neve-selbert 17:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
One reason the majority of the original debaters supported "monarch's representative" was that the description used for Elizabeth II (and for all other sovereigns) is "monarch", therefore this wording would be consistent with the rest of the article. ZBukov (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The majority of the original debaters? Nonsense, there was never any majority. There would be zero consistency in respect to Monarch's Representative. It is a totally made-up term, uses an unrequired possessive, and would risk POV conflict. Neve-selbert 09:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Whatever your personal opinion on arguments, you are not at liberty to state prima facie untruths (and it is especially unwise when anyone interested can check the facts for themselves by simply scrolling up on this page). Out of the four original debaters, upon consideration three of us clearly expressed a preference for "monarch'a representative" and against "viceroy". ZBukov (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Prima facie untruths? If you at least have the courtesy, spare the feckless legal jargon—there is zero hardcore evidence for that. Furthermore, I have asked Happysquirrel for further comment. And (as it stands now) there is no clear majority and you are falsely resorting to argumentum ad populum. :). Neve-selbert 10:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you are even trying to deny details of the above discussion, than we really have nothing to talk about. And as you already stated days ago, the debate is already over. ZBukov (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Henceforth, we shall have to agree to disagree. Neve-selbert 13:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
We have disagreed right from the beginning of this debate (or more correctly from the point where you first agreed to "monarch's representative" and then pulled out of the consensus). But make no mistake, your use of the above phrase ('agree to disagree') does not give you a carte blanche (or even my tacit acquiescence) to imposing "viceroy" on the article. ZBukov (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for factual accuracy, I strongly support Monarch's Representative and strongly oppose Vicerory. That was what I meant in the previous discussions. I have disengaged from this discussion both for the sake of my own stress level, due to time constraints and to avoid bogging down the RfC with a replay of our above discussion. I trust the editors invited in can read any part of it they are interested in. That being said, the RfC obviously trumps any concensus or lack there of we reached so my position during the preliminary discussion really should not be an issue. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Queen's Representative actual title. Arguments against are unpersuasive—in case you weren't already aware, Wikipedia is freely editable by anyone, so the title can be easily changed once Elizabeth passes on. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: Once the succession occurs, I must stress that the descriptor could not be simply changed to King's Representative—as this would make it look like the Queen had never reigned over the Cook Islands earlier on that same year (whenever that may be). Queen's/King's Representative would look quite messy as a solution. Queen's Representative is quite frankly untenable, we need to properly describe this officeholder, and describing him simply as the Queen's Representative gives us a totally misleading perception that he will only represent a queen and never a king. Hence the problem. Neve-selbert 16:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a list of state leaders in 2015. Not the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Say waaaaaaat? The RFC is a little unclear about where this usage takes place, but the one in this article appears to be a list of state leaders in 2015. I have no knowledge of monarchistic protocol, and if I wanted to learn I'd start with a cookbook, but if the entire calendar year of 2015 had a Queen's representative representing a Queen, not a King, named in reliable sources from the constitution on down, then why on Earth do you need to come up with some description other than what it is? Count me mystified. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wnt: I admit that this situation is quite complicated, although take a look at it this way: descriptors are meant to be subtly different from the subsequent titles, while still alluding to them, and individual ones are recommended to be consistent throughout the List of state leaders in XXXX articles as possible. One day—not for a good long while yet, we hope—the Queen will no longer be reigning as ceremonial monarch of every one of these other countries, and we will be obliged to change the descriptor Queen's Representative – to something else. So at the end of the day and to prevent leaving this future problem scenario at bay, we should act now and choose a gender-nuanced alternative. Similar to how individual kings and queens use the descriptor Monarch – instead of King – or Queen –. Neve-selbert 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: I don't think that inter-article consistency is a major priority - is there any style guideline that calls for it? And you can't have this consistency if there's actually a revolution and the office gets replaced by the Chairman of the Committee of Public Safety or something. A revolution would imply a change in the constitution, and from what I'm told above, so would the change from Queen's representative to King's representative. So I see no particular need to make this change, and strong WP:V/WP:OR type concerns to not make this change. Wnt (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wnt: I can confirm that the Cook Islands constitution would have to be changed. To comply with both WP:V and WP:OR, I present this evidence for good measure. Neve-selbert 19:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion Monarch’s representative is the best. Queen’s representative reflects the current situation, when the monarch of United Kingdom is the Queen Elisabeth II. But in the future it seems will be a king. The term, I am sure, will be King’s representative. So for unify the terms, it is indicate to use “Monarch’s representative” The term of Viceroy represent a different dignity and my opinion it is not indicate to be used in case of Cook Island. Bogdan Uleia (talk)
@Bogdan Uleia: Could I please refer to the points above? I also must stress the news article aforementioned also. Neve-selbert 10:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Queen's Representative seems to be the only option that is supported, at the present time, by reliable sources so everything else fails WP:V. The post will continue to be called, and described as, "Queen's Representative" until either the constitution of the Cook Islands is changed or the WP:COMMONNAME changes, regardless of the gender of the monarch. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Noting I came here from User talk:Newyorkbrad. To me, Queen's Representative seems to be the choice. It's represented by fact, and should the queen die this year, one could say King/Queen's Representative. Clunky? Yes. Correct? Yes. Somewhat unlikely she dies this year? Yes. In 2015 Marsters was the Queen's Representative, not Viceroy or Monarch's representative. People will have to mess with the royal cypher when the queen dies, but we don't argue about its usage in those cases. NativeForeigner Talk 17:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@NativeForeigner: Agree We should close this dispute now and keep the status quo. FTR, I have previewed King's/Queen's Representative and it does not look too shabby or clunky at all. It looks fine and concise and I am confident that it will be apt in future. Neve-selbert 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Thryduulf, please note that we are not debating about the official title of the royal representative in the Cook Islands. No-one wants to change that. If you take a look at the List of state leaders in 2015 article, you'll see that there is a description in front of people's names to indicate the kind of office they occupy (as their particular titles can vary widely), therefore that description is not (or not always) identical with their official title. For example the description for every emperor, king, queen, sultan, emir, grand duke, sovereign prince, etc is "monarch".
It is interesting to notice that the very editor who started the whole debate had a final change of heart and now fails to see any problem with the gender-neutrality of the description "Queen's representative"... ZBukov (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Flexibility, is rarely a vice. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 11 It's not flexibility, it's flip-floppery. It's unsurprising you, of all people, would confuse the two. Flexibility is being open to compromise. Flip-flopping is arguing one thing and then arguing the exact opposite. It's irritating and disruptive.
Neve has admitted there are 6 people favouring 'monarch's representative'. Yet, rather than see that as a reason to concede and let 'monarch's representative' be implemented, it's a reason to shut this thousands of words- and days-long argument down and shelve it, under the false pretense that Neve just didn't consider 'Queen' representative' properly in terms of its gender-neutrality? I don't think so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yourself & ZB are certaintly free to persuade participants to support Monarch's representative as a descriptive. This Rfc will be open for another 20+ days. Who knows? maybe a bunch of editors will show up supporting it. In the meantime, I hope we can all show restraint & concentrate less on each other & more on the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
And, again, please, pointing out the obvious serves what purpose other than deflection? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That's your observation. Others will have to decide as to whether my supporting Queen's Representative, is valid or not. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Er, no. The question mark--that squiggly line over a dot at the end of the sentence--that indicates that what I wrote is a question, not an observation. Typically, the person to whom I'm directing the question (hint: that's you) is expected to answer it. You did not. Perhaps because you mistook it for an observation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You're free to draw your own conclusions. Meanwhile, I'll respect whatever the result is of this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Bzzzt. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The funny thing is that the problem he spotted and started the whole debate for, is real, since the descriptions should ideally be generic, consistent and neutral. And since Elizabeth II's description is already "monarch", the consistent solution would be describing her representative in the Cook Islands as "monarch's representative". ZBukov (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're still in favour of Monarch's representative as a descriptive? then it's best you concentrate on persuading the rest of us. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I presume everyone is familiar with the arguments by now. Or if not, I am happy to recap them. ZBukov (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is what it should look like:

 New Zealand
Monarch – Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand (1952–present)
Monarch's representative – Sir Jerry Mateparae, Governor-General of New Zealand (2011–present)
Prime minister – John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand (2008–present)
 Cook Islands (associated state of New Zealand)
Monarch's representative – Tom Marsters, Queen's Representative of the Cook Islands (2013–present)
Prime minister – Henry Puna, Prime Minister of the Cook Islands (2010–present)

Currently the description in front of Sir Jerry Mateparae's name says "Governor-General" instead of "Monarch's representative", and for Tom Marsters it's presently "Queen's representative" (which is neither consistent with the Queen's description of "monarch", nor gender-neutral, since the monarch is not necessarily female). So the description should be improved as seen above. That's all, actually. ZBukov (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, hideous beyond belief. The status quo is fine and should be kept. Neve-selbert 18:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole debate is about what word or words should precede the name of Tom Marsters (and possibly other royal representatives). Besides Monarch's representative, the other suggestions were Viceroy, Lieutenant-Governor, Governor-General, and earlier Monarchical representative, Viceregal representative, or Associated viceroy. ZBukov (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

One passing observation: you come across as being desperate about this topic. Have we swapped characters now? Neve-selbert 18:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So this is what it currently looks like:

And this is the Viceroy version:

And this is the Monarch's representative version:

ZBukov (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just for the elimination of pointless repetition alone, the 'monarch's representative' version is the superior one. (Why does Neve insist the titles 'Governor-General' and now (all of a sudden!) 'Queen's Representative' need to be present twice? I probably shouldn't ask...) Then there's the added bonus of 'monarch's representative' being absolutely, unquestionably gender-neutral, which means it'll make things easier in the long run. Arguments against 'monarch's representative' are exceedingly weak. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Just your opinion, Mies. I've asked you repeatedly to find a source stating that representing the monarch is the totality of the Australian Governor-General's job, when various constitutional texts point out that he performs important government functions in his own right in addition to representing the Queen. You have never been able to find one, other than your own personal interpretation of a primary source.
And why on earth are we using the Cook Islands as a model? It has a peculiar and individual status. Not a colony, not a territory, not a Realm, not a nation. A bit of everything. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The Australian Governor-General exercises important government functions because by law the head of state (the Queen) is assigned those functions, and the exercise of the vast majority of those are in turn delegated to the Governor-General. Please see the Governor-General's website's description of his role quoting the Constitution as saying: "The executive power of the Commonwealth [of Australia] is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative" ZBukov (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Zoltan, I strongly warn you not to entertain Pete's ill-conceived personal interpretations of the role of the Australian governor-general. This discussion has enough red herrings already and, trust me, if you engage Pete over this particular matter, it'll add thousands more words here pointlessly. Don't make eye contact and back... slowly... away... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Zoltan, perhaps you could do some research on executive power in Australia. Winterton's book remains the only in-depth examination, but other views have been published and are more freely available. Here's a research paper published by the parliament: I draw your attention to the paragraph: "Chapter II of the Constitution, the Executive Government, is relatively short, consisting of only 10 provisions, including section 61. In addition, to the executive power of the Commonwealth, Chapter II provides for the appointment, number and salaries of Ministers (sections 64 to 66). Section 68 vests command of Australia's naval and military forces in the Governor-General and section 69 provides for certain State departments to be transferred to the Commonwealth."
I have boldfaced two significant words above. You are welcome to make your own investigations as to where the various powers of the Governor-General are drawn from. --Pete (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


  • Revised comment on "What should be the gender-neutral description for the Cook Islands royal representative?"
Support (A) Queen's Representative - status quo, actual title of position. This is acceptable, and no problem. The article relates to the present. At any time in the future this can be changed to "King's representative", if the event happens this year or in any future year.
Oppose (B) Viceroy - a suo jure gender-nuanced term. Definitely not acceptable: artificial and creates problems.
Supportable (C) Monarch's Representative gender-neutralising the first word of status quo, as in ZBukov's proposed version above (19:03, 5 February). As there used, it is clearly a formulaic descriptor, it is accurate, and the same format and wording could be used in other cases, such as governors general. I concur with ZBukov's reasoning passim, Mies.'s reasoning at 23:23, 5 February, Happy Squirrel's at 14:03 5 February, Ed's at 08:03, 6 February, Wnt's at 19:36, 4 February, Thryduulf's at 17:35, 5 February, ZBukov's at 17:49, 5 February, Mies .'s at 18:11, 5 February.
Qexigator 00:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC), revised Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Qexigator: Just to clarify, are you in support of both (A+B) options or just one of both of them?
For the record, Viceroy is quite simply not "artificial" as you call it as the term was used in the New Zealand press around a decade ago in 2005. Neve-selbert 00:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Repeat: Oppose (B) Viceroy - a suo jure gender-nuanced term. Definitely not acceptable: artificial and creates problems. Qexigator (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Qexigator: Out of curiosity, could you please specify as to how the term is "artificial" and "creates problems"?
Secondly, do you support the status quo, Monarch's Representative, or both? Neve-selbert 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
+ I do not see that Pete's remark about g-gs in Australia relates to the question put, one way or the other. Anyhow, governors-general are not considered to be heads of state by the present office-holders in any of the Commonwealth realms, or by their countries' heads of government (prime ministers). Qexigator (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
In Australia, at least, the Governor-General's constitutional role is greater than representing the monarch. He derives his powers from the Constitution and exercises them without reference to the monarch. He is not a delegate nor an agent of the monarch and takes no instructions from the monarch. Accordingly, labeling him as "Monarch's Representative" is misleading. He does more than that. It is like saying that the Prime Minister is a member of parliament. Yes, true, but that's not telling the whole truth. I think we should keep the office-bearers' titles intact, rather than giving them a problematic label. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, we needn't encourage Pete to jam up this effort with his personal theories on the Governor-General of Australia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Miesianiacal, grow up and WP:FOC. -- Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You missed the mark twice, there. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Spot on, Doctor Crazy. Neve-selbert 16:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure?

From what I'm observing, a majority here are preferring Queen's Representative. Furthermore, if no consensus is reached for Viceroy or Monarch's Representative? then the default would be the status quo - Queen's Representative.

Therefore, shall I request that this Rfc be closed as no consensus? or do we let it run 30 days? GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The RfC was opened by Neve; let it run its course. When it's time to close the discussion, an impartial admin will have to be called in to do so (and, in the process, among other matters, decide whether or not someone who supported 'Queen's Representative' properly understood the issue under discussion). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I opened this Rfc :) GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pardon me. But, it was at Neve's behest. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I opened the Rfc, however. PS - Are we gonna argue over this, too ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
True. Neve-selbert 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Against - after having listened to the original proponent argue, threaten and plead for "viceroy" for a month, only to suddenly realize two days ago that he has no problem with the status quo after all, I don't feel we are in a rush to close this RfC. And I cannot help but notice that the support Neve-selbert attributed above to "Queen's representative" was somewhat exaggerated. ZBukov (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I was looking for advice on whether or not to request closure of this Rfc. I think we can do without bashing any participants :) GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Had the support for 'viceroy' gone the other way, I strongly suspect we'd be hearing a different story from all those now wishing to shut this down. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support closure - I think we're getting to the stage where arguments are becoming repetitive. We have a majority in support of the status quo and no consensus to change it. --Pete (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support closure - for a few reasons;
  1. To stop the "editor bashing" that is occurring – not naming names *ahem*
  2. To stop the repetitive bludgeoning of arguments that stopped new and uninvolved editors participating without first reading the pages of dialogue between you all - note that I tried to make it easier by requesting that the "old and involved editors" stop posting when I created #Section break 1.
  3. Since I am still rather uninvolved, I could close this RfC since it has now been requested for withdrawal by both nominator and "behestor of nomination" - note that RfCs don't need Admins to formally close them.
  4. The actual content dispute appears to have resolved itself amongst the original disputants. Conduct can be taken to the Dramaboard if any editor(/s) so wish to.
Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've no objections to your closing this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Nor have I, Doc. Neve-selbert 03:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
None here. Unless we get more editors come in, or someone comes up with something new, there seems to be no point in continuing. We've said what we want to say, we've responded to each other, we should get on with other work. --Pete (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Doc.'s remarks (01:07, 8 February), and with letting this be closed. Qexigator (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Title changed from President of the Military Government Junta to Provisional President on 25 July 1980.
  2. ^ a b "vicereine". Retrieved 22 November 2014.
  3. ^ For this to succeed, however, the RFC must be closed in one of the other ways listed here since other dispute resolution forums and processes will not accept a case where a RfC is pending.
  4. ^ A February 2013 RFC affirmed equal status for admin and non-admin closures.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WTF?

Looking at the convoluted discussions above, there's NO consensus. Using the bizarre situation of the Cook Islands - is it a nation? is it a Realm?, is it a territory? - as a guide for every other nation is ridiculous. Just use the titles the officials already have. Commonwealth Governors-General are far more than the monarch's representative. The Queen does not lead the governance of any of her Realms except for the United Kingdom, and even then in a very limited sense. Trying to pretend that she is the direct leader of large chunks of the Earth's surface is ridiculous. --Pete (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: I think we should just opt for Lieutenant-Governor. According to a quote from this official PDF document it states:

In form, the Cook Islands has two Queen's representatives — one (the Queen's Representative) for the Cook Islands as Cook Islands; the other (the Governor-General) for the Cook Islands as part of the Realm of New Zealand. This arrangement is akin to those of Australia and Canada, where the Governor-General is the Sovereign's representative for the whole of the federation but each State or Province retains its own Governor or Lieutenant-Governor to represent the Queen in that State or Province.

Would you support this option over Viceroy or Monarch's Representative? Thanks. Neve-selbert 15:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The particular rights and duties of a country's head of state is immaterial to this debate. The Queen is indeed head of state of all sixteen countries, because they opt to retain her as their monarch (Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Barbados, etc). And whatever rights she has in the Commonwealth realms, she cedes almost all of them to the Governor-General to exercise on a day to day basis (therefore they are permanently deputizing for her). Lieutenant-Governor would not be an appropriate description for the Cook Islands official because 1) it is an existing title, while the person in question has a different title, and 2) the Queen's representative in the Cook Islands is not the deputy of the Governor-General of New Zealand, but instead the direct representative of the Queen. ZBukov (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Zoltan Bukovszky: So then, why not just describe the Queen's Representative as Governor-General and put this matter to rest once and for all? Neve-selbert 16:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't accept that either of these are serious proposals. If you don't know why using 'lieutenant-governor' or 'governor-general' as a descriptor for the office of Queen's Representative is unacceptable, you're in over your head here and should cease contributing to this discussion. It shouldn't need saying: 'governor-general' is an office and an accordant title; so is 'lieutenant-governor'. Using them as descriptors for offices like Queen's Representative, representative of a Co-Prince of Andorra, and regents will only therefore cause confusion. It'd also be a presumptuous assertion on the part of Wikipedia to describe any of those positions as governors-general or lieutenant-governors when no reliable source anywhere does so.
Once again 'monarch's representative' is the one entirely gender-neutral descriptor that can apply to all without being WP:OR, in contravention of WP:V, and/or misleading. As you're aware, most people, so far, have agreed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: I am simply proposing as a compromise for the Governor-General description to be applied to the Cook Islands, and the Cook Islands only. How exactly would that be unacceptable? Neve-selbert 16:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"How exactly would that be unacceptable?" You've got to be kidding. *facepalm* --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Miesianiacal: Your haughty rudeness is cowardly and unappreciated. So, simply put, would you regard the Queen's Representative as a sort of governor-general on par with Johnston? Yes or No. Neve-selbert 17:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Those are two very different things... Governor-general != Queen's representative of the Cooks Islands. Not even close. While obviously not ideal, I find it hard to blame Miesianical for facepalming. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that Mies wishes to replace every Commonwealth example in the table with "Queen's representative". Including Governors-General. Perhaps some clarification is in order? --Pete (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Skyring: It is both the aim of Mies and ZBukov to replace every Commonwealth example in the list with Monarch's Representative, which in my view is an appalling idea. Neve – selbert 22:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Concur. Queen's Rep, Monarch's Rep, both equally and wildly inappropriate. --Pete (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed Skyring. Across many Wikipedia articles, Elizabeth II's role beyond the United Kingdom, has been promoted to the extreme. IMHO, it's a breach of WP:WEIGHT & likely WP:NPOV. I wouldn't mind if the Wiki-community rectified this Wikipedia-wide problem. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
As long as sovereign countries legally declare her to be their Queen, you can't really do much about it, can you. ZBukov (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's up to the community as how to show Elizabeth II, not me. But anyways, that's a Wikipedia-wide discussion to be had. Let's get back to the Rfc, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Being Queen doesn't mean she has a leadership position. For the United Kingdom, there is no dispute. For the rest, it varies. In Australia, she has no power over the government. She may reign, but she does not rule. Calling her the Australian leader is nonsensical, misleading at best. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The number of tasks and duties assigned to a head of state is up to each country to decide. Yet it does not override the fact that whoever the constitution designated as head of state, is the head of state. There are other examples of heads of state having very little (or no) executive functions, e.g. the Presidents of Ireland or India, or the Emperor of Japan. So for the Queen not to be the head of state of Australia would require Australia to change her constitution to that effect (i.e. declare a republic).
And Australia in particular had an unprecedentedly salient example of the practical consequences of royal power, when the Prime Minister was fired in 1975 by the Governor-General, using the royal prerogative. ZBukov (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Zoltan. Could you please quote the words in the Australian Constitution that say "The Queen is the Head of State"?
In 1975, the Governor-General used the power given to him in the Constitution (Section 64[5]). This power was not given to the Queen, and this was acknowledged by the Queen at the time. --Pete (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: And to whom are you talking to, exactly?--Neve–selbert 19:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert (talk · contribs) Editors of this page, RfC has implication on previous year pages too, those need to be updated according to RfC result. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_state_leaders_in_2015/Archive_3&oldid=1065779017"