Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 9

message: Not sure who's applied the  tag so liberally on this article but the level of usage is abusive. Please use  on an entire section where needed. Thanks. Netscott 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all of the  and  tags and replaced them with a section heading tag:  for Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#Life_as_Queen. Please edit as necessary. Thanks. Netscott 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of the {{[[Template:fact|fact]]}} tag

message: Please see the discussion here:
*Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_Scotland#Direct_descent_from_Fergus_M.C3.B3r_to_Elizabeth_II
--Mais oui! 10:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II]] 

message: Will whomever keeps putting in the special table of contents box please stop!!! There is a reason we don't put them there. It may look OK on your computer screen but on millions of others your change screws up the page. If people don't have the WP screen open fully on their desktop, or they have the font set large, or if a host of other things are done, then your edit turns the page into an unreadable mess. On my screen it reduces the entire first paragraph to a row of one word lines. On a different browser it broke the paragraph mid sentence with part of the paragraph before the TOC and the rest at the bottom. That is why we never ever ever but a TOC at the top of a page when that page has a template. 
If you don't like white spaces beside the TOC (and there are always white spaces beside a TOC) then put pictures or something in that space. Because different people may be looking at the page with different monitors, we cannot have pictures larger than 250px, cannot have the TOC at the top, and cannot do a host of other things. So stop it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, it was a right mess! Astrotrain 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: Please add how to pronounce "Elizabeth II" (I think it is "Elizabeth the second").
Thanks. -- Anon
:You are right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to say "II"? 

message: Someone had added Duke of Lancaster to the titles part. Any comments? Joshua Chiew 00:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who added it seems to be misinformed, for he placed it in a box suggesting she was once styled 'HRH The Duke of Lancaster'!. Anyway, its been removed, but its still in the text, where it belongs. --Berks105 10:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''HRH Duke of Lancaster''...Again

message: It is true that this article is always going to be a bit on the long side, but I am not sure that the section about the Proclamations needs to be here. The proclamations themselves probably belong on Wikipedia, and the explanation surrounding, while interesting, is not the sort of detail I'd expect in this sort of biographical article. I am also not sure we need the Honorary military appointments section. It is nothing but a list, of arguable importance. Surely it wouldn't hurt to move it to a subarticle? JPD (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proclamation/Honourary Appts sections 

message: As has been explained several times, "the United Kingdom and her/the Commonwealth Realms" is ridiculous unless you are saying that the United Kingdom is not a Commmonwealth Realm. Throughout Wikipedia, the term Commonwealth Realms includes the UK, based on the (exceedingly logical) definition of Commonwealth Realm formerly on the monarchy's website. It is true that the rest of the website does not seem to use the term in that sense, but if you are to argue that the UK is not a Commonwealth Realm, then you should be changing Commonwealth Realms and a lot more, not simply putting a strange title in an infobox. "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" is not an official title anywhere, but neither is "Queen of the United Kingdom and her Commonwealth Realms". If we are not going to use an official title, then use the version that makes sense (apart from anything else, "Commonwealth" is redundant after "her"!). I personally would not be bothered if the infobox used the British title (of the UK and her other realms and territories), but I'm sure some would object. JPD (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining the status of the UK as a Commonwealth Realm.  As per usage of an official title, she holds sixteen of them; which one then should be inserted into the infobox?  Even her UK title - Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith - is a tad long to fit in there.  Queen of the Commonwealth Realms is not an official title, but she is, by the nature of her being Sovereign of each Realm individually, Queen of the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 14:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, well, Queen of the Commonwealth Realsm is all well and good, as is Queen of the United Kingdom, seeing as that's her home nation, and the realm of which her dynasty have been sovereigns for a very long time. The reason I used "Queen of the United Kingdom and her [as in the UK's] Commonwealth Realms" was because she is primarily our queen, but is also the queen of the 15 other commonwealth realms. Should we perhaps use:
Queen of the United Kingdom
and the other Commonwealth realms''
// DBD 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's the age-old debate about whether perception is more important than legal facts.  Some see her as "primarily" Queen of the UK, but others see her as being "equally" Queen of Australia - in either case it's a POV.  Where there is no room for interpretation in what's written in law, and that is that she's queen of each country equally.  Besides, isn't it already apparent enough here that her home Realm is the UK? --gbambino 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [edit conflict] "her [as in the UK's] Commonwealth Realms" is completely wrong. The 15 other realms are Her Majesty's realms, but they aren't the UK's realms in any sense at all - the 16 realms have equal status. The question of whether she is primarily the British Queen comes up all the time in discussions about this page, and depends on what you mean by the statement. As for the title in the infobox, I have already said that I wouldn't object to a sensible abbreviation of the official UK title. I also wouldn't object to Queen of the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms, but I really don't see what is wrong with "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" apart from the obscurity of the term "Commonwealth Realms", particularly since the UK is already given more significant prominence in the title of the article. JPD (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "...it's already the title in the article name, so it's not as if it'd be introducing any bias that's not already there."  That statement acknowledges that there's bias in the title, and I agree, but I'd counter that acknowledging only "Queen of the United Kingdom" (which itself is not a title) in the infobox only enhances the bias, and fosters misconceptions like DBD/Esperanza's belief that the other 15 of the Queen's Realms are actually the UK's Realms. --gbambino 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such misconception would be swiftly removed by reading the article. Infoboxes aren't meant to be used on their own, and detail is bound to be lost when information is condensed. That doesn't mean we should try as hard as possible to squeeze everything in the article into the infobox. It's only intended to be a quick summary. And of course we're allowing some bias every time we decide on an article title — it's biased, for instance, that London is given precedence over London, Ohio, but it's the World's bias, not ours, just as it's not our bias that Queen Elizabeth II is primarily regarded by the vast majority of people as Britain's Queen and not Australia's Queen. Proteus (Talk) 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is totally stupid to have in the info a title which she does not hold. I agree with Proteus that in the infobox should be Queen of the United Kingdom (which is an abbreviation of her actual title, not an invented title like Queen of the Commonwealth. To say that putting the former is POV is also wrong, it is mearly using the title by which she is most known. --Berks105 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone suggested "Queen of the Commonwealth". That is plain wrong, as well as not being an official title. To use the UK title is to use one POV - the only question is whether this is justified. JPD (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone's trying to invent titles.  But, if it's to be a matter of how she is "most known," then we may as well insert Queen of England into the infobox, because, well, that's how the majority of people around the world would dub her. Of course, we can do no such thing, but I only raise it to show that popular consensus does not always equal accuracy.  Now, Queen of the United Kingdom is accurate, and that has never been contested, but its sole use here is inherently biased and POV.  The argument that this bias is justified because it is popularly supported holds as much validity as the argument for calling her Queen of England. Does the following seem appropriate?: --gbambino 18:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I admire your attempt at a compromise, I feel certain that, the issue of whether to include Queen of the UK aside, Queen of the Commonwealth Realms would be a good solution - I feel regnant to be unnecessary (were she consort, she would have no regnal number...) - three lines would be undesirable. I can't see why each need be there either... // DBD 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's better than inventing a title, I suppose, but it's so complicated that no one would bother trying to work it out — the whole point of an infobox is to present the most important information quickly and succinctly. If it's too complicated, there's no point in having anything there at all. I suspect most readers would shut down at "regnant". And I think "Queen of England"'s a bit of an irrelevant distraction: the policy is known as "most common name" but it's obviously really "most common name that's not actually incorrect", which in this case is "...of the United Kingdom" without a doubt. Proteus (Talk) 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't counter my point that just because the bias is popularly accepted is it justified.  Also, if people are going to "shut down" after only the one word, then how can you argue that they'll move on to the larger, longer, and much more dense body of the article to see that she isn't just Queen of the UK, but also equally, and separately, Queen of fifteen other countries?  The assertion is tantamount to saying that articles should be written in a manner which appeases the laziness of readers.  Neither "Queen regnant of each of the Commonwealth Realms," "Queen regnant of each Commmonwealth Realm," nor "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms" is complicated; perhaps the bracketed "titled accordingly" could simply be eliminated all-together. --gbambino 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people come here to read articles, not infoboxes. If the infoboxes aren't simple, they'll just ignore them and read the article, and we might as well not have infoboxes at all. Proteus (Talk) 22:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories" is longer than "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms," and singles out her UK title. --gbambino 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does however avoid using an obscure term that doesn't seem to be used outside the monarchy's website and Wikipedia. I don't object to either one, but it does seem strange to insist on increasing the UK emphasis. JPD (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Singling out her UK title, both as the only one of her many titles in which she effectively functions on a day to day basis as head of state, and as the one which is historically most important.  As noted "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms" is a made up title with no legal basis whatsoever.  There is nothing POV about emphasizing the queen's relationship to the United Kingdom.  As far as I can tell, Gbambino's entire purpose on wikipedia seems to be to dispute the perfectly reasonable idea that the Queen, who lives in the UK, and who, in the UK, uniquely, is not represented by a Governor-General, cannot be described as "Queen of the UK" unless Belize and Papua New Guinea, where she has no de facto role at all, practically all of her duties as head of state being performed by a Governor-General appointed not by her, but by the government of said country, are also mentioned at once.  This is absurd and ridiculous, and not to be tolerated. john k 18:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that the Queen is equally head of state of sixteen countries and not just of the UK seems to be such a thorn in your side, John.  Unfortunately, however, it is the truth, and cannot be dispelled by your acrobatics in logic.  Elizabeth II may spend most of her time in the UK, but the assertion that this justifies the elevation here of her UK title over and above all her others is, by your own admission, only a "reasonable idea."  Her geographic location has nothing to do with it, popular ignorance has nothing to do with it, even her governors general (who, by the way are appointed directly by her - I mean, really, who else would?) have nothing to do with it.  It is about being unbiased and factually accurate.  The article title already highlights her position as Queen of the UK, thus it need not be enhanced any more.  So, unless you can argue that the phrase "Queen regnant of the Commonwealth Realms" (which, by the way, was never put forward as a title) is biased and factually incorrect then tolerate it. Or, at least, try and work towards a compromise instead of being so bloody petulant when something isn't as easy as you'd like to pretend it is. --gbambino 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in Infobox 

message: Looking at "Commonwealth Realm" on google and excluding wikipedia, I seem to see a number of sites that say that there are only 15 commonwealth realms, and that thus, by implication, the UK is not, in fact, a commonwealth realm.  The official royal site suggests as much as well.  Besides having most of the site deal with the Queen's relationship with the UK (and crown dependencies), the section on the Queen and the Commonwealth contains the statement "The Queen and the Royal Family retain close links with the Commonwealth realms, and with other members of the worldwide Commonwealth organisation."  In this sentence, "the Commonwealth realms" clearly means "the countries other than the UK of which she is Queen.
It seems to me that unless Gbambino, et al, can present some evidence to the contrary, the UK is not, in fact, a commonwealth realm.  There is absolutely no citation in the article Commonwealth Realm which supports his interpretation of the UK as being one.  A "commonwealth realm" is, in fact, the new term for what used to be called a "dominion".  The UK was never a dominion, and it is not now a commonwealth realm.  It is the United Kingdom, and is sui generis.  Thus, "Queen of the UK and the 15 Commonwealth Realms" would seem like a perfectly appropriate statement.  As far as I can tell, all internet references to the UK as a commonwealth realm are derived from wikipedia's use of the term. john k 11:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's always struck me as a little odd calling the UK a Commonwealth Realm, but I had assumed that we did it because someone had shown it to be so. If our practice is merely another result of this ongoing campaign then it should certainly be abandoned and a correct practice substituted. Proteus (Talk) 17:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will admit to having possibly put the case a bit too strongly.  There is certainly some usage in which the term "commonwealth realm" is used to include the UK - I believe the Australian Monarchist League does this.  There's also a speech which does this by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia.  But there's also plenty of usage which goes the other way, and, when one discounts wikipedia mirrors and material written on message boards by, er, Gbambino, it seems to me that there's more going the other way.  See Talk:Commonwealth Realm for more discussion on the subject, and where I highlight the Monarchist League of Canada and the Times of India using the term in a way to exclude the UK. john k 17:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the UK a Commonwealth Realm?