Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

message: TharkunColl, why do you insist on inserting an ambiguously worded, redundant sentence into the lead paragraph?  The dablink at the top of the page already explains that the Monarchy is shared, and then the very first section of the main article body explains in detail the personal union relationship.  It seems the only reason you're pushing this is to insert the words "British Empire," but in such a manner as subtly impart on unknowing readers your colonial opinions about the non-UK realms.  I ask: what's the reason to include such a sentence there?  And, if there is a reason, the sentence must be recomposed. --G2bambino 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 other countries 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
=====Survey - supporting=====
# Support, naturally, it being my proposal.  I think that, given that it is meant to go in the lead, the explanation might be cut down a bit, but that's pretty much a toss-up, to my mind.  Certainly it should be no longer, full explanation belonging in the main body of the article. -- Lonewolf BC 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support, naturally, it being my proposal.  I think that, given that it is meant to go in the lead, the explanation might be cut down a bit, but that's pretty much a toss-up, to my mind.  Certainly it should be no longer, full explanation belonging in the main body of the article. -- Lonewolf BC 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - supporting

message: # Oppose: a) The proposed text is incorrect, as per facts presented above. b) Resolution to this dispute cannot take place via a vote; if a compromise cannot be reached, proper dispute resolution procedures should be followed. --G2bambino 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - opposing

message: (From my talk-page, but I believe this rightly concerns the editorship-at-large of this article. -- LW)I have opened a Mediation Cabal request; User:GrooveDog has since asked if he is acceptable as a mediator.  You may want to voice your approval or disapproval there. --G2bambino 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal Case 

message: *Agree - obviously, since I wrote it! -- Hux 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: The issue isn't really the word meaning, but the impression.  If we say "The Jamaican Monarch rules Great Britain" this is technically true, but it runs a real risk of creating a false impression.  "The Jamaican Monarch" sounds like an office.  Every case needs to be looked at in context, not in isolation.  WilyD 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's all in the verb.  If we said "The Jamaican monarch is also monarch of the United Kingdom and fourteen other commonwealth realms," [and I do think the UK ought to always be set out separately in such sentences, since it is qualitatively different from the others in that, you know, the queen lives there and all - but even without that, "The Jamaican monarch is also monarch of fifteen other commonwealth realms" is perfectly fine and not misleading] there wouldn't be a  problem.  Similarly "The Foreign Secretary is MP for South Shields" is fine, while "the MP for South Shields runs the Foreign Office"  might give a false impression.  I'd also add that the British (and Jamaican  and Papua New Guinean) monarch reigns but does not rule, so your statement is misleading for that reason.  "The Jamaican monarch reigns over the United Kingdom" still seems vaguely misleading, but  "The Jamaican monarch also reigns over the United Kingdom" is not. john k 15:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WilyD: Following on from john k's point, if all we were discussing was the possible misunderstanding of a single sentence out of context then I would agree with you. However, what we're actually talking about is the use of such phrases in the lead section of the article, where there is some context, and in the body, where there is a lot of context, including a detailed explanation of the shared monarch situation. In neither case is it grammatically possible to infer a false impression, thus avoiding the phrasing is unnecessary. (Obviously a few people will inevitably misunderstand no matter how it's phrased; that's unavoidable.) As such, I don't think your objection holds water. -- Hux 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only a matter of impression, but a matter of making clear the divisions of jurisdiction that exist between the Commonwealth Realms.  If, as the English Court of Appeals stated, "there is only one person who is the Sovereign within the British Commonwealth... in matters of law and government the Queen of the United Kingdom, for example, is entirely independent and distinct from the Queen of Canada," then Elizabeth II is synonymous with Queen of Australia, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of Tuvalu, etc., but the roles of Queen of Australia, Queen of Jamaica, Queen of Tuvalu, etc., are not synonymous with each other; they are independent and distinct.  The wording of the sentence in question now reflects that decision by the Court of Appeal. --G2bambino 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not an objection, just a note - that context often requires we be cautious and conservative to avoid creating a misleading impression.  The issue doesn't just affect the lead here, but resonantes in other articles as well. Each time it needs to be addressed seperately, which phrasing is correct and clearest.  That's all.  WilyD 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bambino - but we do make clear all that.  It doesn't have to be 100% clear in every damned sentence.  That way is the way to bad writing, as is the case with the sentence in the third  paragraph of the intro at the moment, with the irritating indirectness of  "the same person is..."  Wiley: Of course we have to be careful about how we phrase things.  The disagreement isn't over that, it's over whether a particular formulation is misleading or not.  I don't think it is misleading to say that "The British monarch also serves independently and separately as monarch of fifteen other commonwealth realms," or something similar.  I hesitate to add that both the historical fact that the monarchy originated in Britain and the practical fact that the monarch's role in British government is considerably greater than in any of the other realms makes it more appropriate to say "The British monarchs also reigns over Canada, Australia, &c." than it is to say "The Canadian monarch also reigns over Britain," but  that's also true, whatever the strict legalities of the matter.  (Let me hasten to note that I don't think it's incorrect to say that the  Canadian monarch also reigns over Britain - it's certainly true.  It's just a kind of weird thing to say, given the historical reality that the British monarch became monarch of Canada, and not vice versa, and the political reality that the monarch has always resided in Britain). john k 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: G2bambino: Just to make my opinion clear: I agree with you that there is a semantic distinction between, say, "the Queen of Canada", referring to the person known as Elizabeth II, and, "the Queen of Canada", referring to the position that is currently occupied by Elizabeth II. (For a parallel example, "the US president" can mean, "George W. Bush", or it can mean, "the person who is president of the United States, whoever that may be".) For this reason, I would not support the use of phrases such as, "the Queen of Canada is the Queen of Jamaica", without any explanatory context, because they are likely to be confusing. But note the operative phrase in that sentence: without any explanatory context - in the section you keep reverting we do have that context: it is made clear that "British monarch" is being used to mean "the person who is the British monarch, whoever that may be". How is it made clear? By the qualifying information that the non-UK realms "are now independent and the monarchy of each is legally distinct from that of Britain". This guarantees that it is impossible to infer that those Realms are subordinate to the UK or that the British monarchy has any power outside the UK because the wording only refers to the person, not to the UK-specific monarchy. That's what makes your edits here unnecessary. -- Hux 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there actually any legitimate protest to the inclusion of the three words "the same individual"? --G2bambino 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you have defined "legitimate" to mean "any protest which I would find to have merit," and that thus the answer is "no."  Obviously, those of us who disagree with you do not agree.  I will ask in return, is there actually any legitimate reason to include the words "the same individual"? john k 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Two simple reasons: accuracy and clarity.  Even if your supposition that the British Monarch and the Canadian Monarch are the same thing, for the sake of three words it becomes more clear to readers that the role of the British Monarch is separate to that of the other crowns Elizabeth holds if the person is highlighted apart from the positions.  Not everyone understands the complexities of the personal union between the Commonwealth Realms to the level that you and I may do, and hence impression does matter. --G2bambino 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: May I throw another spanner in the works by pointing out that Ireland is not part of Great Britain and never has been? Some readers will find the current phrasing offensive. A more acceptable alternative might be:
"...in 1707 the kingdoms were merged to create the Kingdom of Great Britain, which eventually evolved into the monarchy of the United Kingdom as it is known today."
"The British monarch is Head of the Commonwealth and, besides reigning in the United Kingdom, separately serves as the head of state for each of fifteen other Commonwealth countries that have stayed monarchies. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain, but they are now independent and the monarchy of each is legally distinct from that of the United Kingdom." DrKiernan 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really understanding the objection. The sentence in question doesn't imply that Ireland is or ever has been part of Great Britain. Confused! -- Hux 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead essentially states "the British monarch reigns in Britain". So she does, but she also reigns in Northern Ireland. (No need for arguments here about legal, separate, independent identities - the offices are one and the same, without distinction). "Britain" is generally taken by the Irish to mean Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. By saying "the British monarch reigns in Britain" you are implying that Britain includes Northern Ireland, which, to my and millions of other minds, it does not. DrKiernan 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not Britain "is generally taken by the Irish to mean Great Britain", to the British, Britain is most often used as a synonym for the UK. If they wanted to refer to the island, they would call it Great Britain. TharkunColl 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote you, "Britain is… most often used as a synonym for the UK". Hence, it is irrelevant to you whether it says "Britain" or "the UK" because you have yourself admitted that to your mind they are the same. Consequently, your objection is not logical. It matters to me because to my mind "Britain" and "the UK" are not synonyms, and describe different entities. DrKiernan 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why there is such a flap about this, since the only thing changing "Britain" to "the United Kingdom" can do is remove ambiguity. Those who contend that the two are identical should see no problem with the terminology, as they are identical, and thus no change has been made in their eyes. Those who find "Britain" incorrect will be pleased as it will remove what they see as an inaccuracy.--Ibagli (Talk) 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There clearly isn't much of a flap about it.  Tharkun's being argumentative, but doesn't really care about the actual issue with the article, and Nat started a vote for no reason. john k 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with the large debate further up the page, I think the objection here is more than a little pedantic. The fact of the matter is that "Britain" is a universally understood synonym for "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (just as "America" is a universally understood synonym for "the United States of America") which means it is acceptable to use the former as shorthand for the latter, as well as in place of stylistically ugly abbreviations such as "the UK". The alternative to that is that Wikipedia takes into account the very small minority of people who are personally offended by colloquial terms that fail to precisely match geographical fact, the end result of which is an encyclopedia where everyone has to say "USian" or "UKian", or whatever the next PC replacement term is. That, imo, detracts far more from the readability and quality of articles than simply using established colloquial terms that the vast majority of readers find to be perfectly understandable and entirely inoffensive. -- Hux 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To draw an analogy: what if I said I was offended by the use of "Ireland" in an article, saying that it should be "the Republic of Ireland", because "Ireland" refers to the whole island, part of which is a different country? What if I then changed all instances of "Ireland" in an article to "the Republic of Ireland", resulting in a stylistic mess? I'm betting that people would say I was being pretty ridiculous. And frankly I think they'd be right. -- Hux 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a bit pedantic, but United Kingdom isn't particularly awkward, and I see no reason to start a fight over it. john k 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I'm not saying that I'm going to fight against the replacement of "Britain" at all costs, but at the same time I really, really want to avoid things like this. "The United Kingdom...the United Kingdom...the United Kingdom...the United Kingdom" - it reads so horribly. It would be a far superior article, in terms of readability and at no cost to understandability, if we at least had the option to use "Britain", you know, just like every other historical and political article everywhere else does. It seems so...petty to me that we should have to moderate ourselves so far to avoid hurting the feelings of a very few people who, as far as I'm concerned, really don't have a good reason to be offended. However, I fully accept that this is just my opinion and if the consensus is to never use "Britain" then I'll go along with it. I just wish the consensus would be, "it's fine to use 'Britain', as long as the context makes it clear that the geographical place being referred to is the UK". Perhaps it can be. Thoughts? -- Hux 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do think we need to be accurate and sensitive, but only up to a point. Too much pedantic accuracy and the article becomes a mess; too much respect for hyper-sensitive readers and the article becomes a mess. I think this particular issue is a good example of going too far. As an example, there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who describe themselves as "Irish" and would strongly object to being described as "British". However, as a description of citizenship, "British" is the only accurate word to use, therefore it would be wrong, in my opinion, to cater to the feelings of such people by refraining from using "British". This is a similar situation: "Britain" as a colloquial synonym for "the UK" is universally understood. Additionally, it affords more editorial breadth for editors to write better, more readable articles, since they don't have to use "the United Kingdom", or "the UK" all the time. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to cater to the feelings of those who object to its simply because geographically speaking, "Britain" doesn't include Northern Ireland. It's a "benefits outweigh the drawbacks" argument, I guess. -- Hux 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: I might also say that as a featured article, there really should be more than 10 references. Can anyone insert some more? DrKiernan 12:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs inline citations 

message: Hello everyone. We need to reach a consensus again and this one will looks simple, but discussion could and will be heated. I'm going to be writing the following like a bill because I'm bored :P Nat Tang  ta | co | em 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again... 

message: There is no particular reason to mention anything about the Commonwealth Realms being former "possessions of the British Empire" in the dablink, of all places; that information is already well covered in the body of this article, as well as at the Commonwealth Realms article itself, which is linked in the dablink.  The dablink should be as consise as absolutely possible; the words "...several former colonial possessions of the British Empire known as..." seem simply superfluous in that context.  (I've already edited down the dalink at Monarchy in Canada to suit.) --G2bambino 17:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very important fact about the British monarchy, and explains why it still has a presence all over the world. TharkunColl 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.  Regardless, it doesn't belong in the dablink. --G2bambino 17:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no need to argue about it. Let's see what others think in due course. TharkunColl 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also add: nearly the exact same text is repeated in the opening of the article itself: "This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain..."; further affirming the redundancy of keeping "...several former colonial possessions of the British Empire known as..." in the dablink. --G2bambino 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: DABlinks should provide the minimum possible information to allows readers to find the article they're looking for. WilyD 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. I'm sure there enough links in the lead, sec. 2.1 and sec. 7, should readers wish to pursue the matter.--Gazzster 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree: the DAB should be as short as possible and should establish: a) that the monarchy is shared, b) how to find info on the other monarchies within that shared system, and c) how to find info about the British royal family. Any and all explanatory information beyond that belongs in the article. -- Hux 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dablink