Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 4

message: We've hardly survived two weeks of voting, so please, everybody, give it a couple of days of rest. Whig and Lulu, please do something else for a while, there's lots of articles that need to be improved, and we're doing all this to improve the articles.
Jguk, please read the poll again carefully. Disregard "first choice", "second choice" and stuff like that, just read people's comments. I'm sure you can see that there is no general agreement for having articles start with styles. And please remember that the use of styles was bitterly contested from the very start. 
As I suggested elsewhere, I think that the misunderstanding we have is that you think that Wikipedia articles should be written in formal tone, i.e. that the introduction of the article is somehow a formal introduction of the person and should be written like the person is formally introduced. As you say, styles definitely exist in the real world and with good arguments I may be persuaded that using them is not POV per se. But the formality of the introduction I find to be completely unencyclopedic. Zocky 10:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really need to this right now?

message: Are you people actually fighting over whether to include the words "Her Majesty" in this article? ...This probing question was posed at 00:07, 2005 May 19 by 69.54.132.216
:No, we're arguing about whether we should say that people call the queen "Her Majesty" or we should call her that ourselves. Zocky 15:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: Recipients of honorary doctorates don't use the titles. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if they did, trying to stick "Doctor" before "Her Majesty" is idiotic. Proteus (Talk) 15:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctorates 

message: An anon closed this vfd discussion as a merge/redirect after only the minimum 5 days discussion. I've reverted the closing. As this was a pretty heated debate, which may not have reached a conclusion yet, and there doesn't even seem to be a consensus as to where it should be redirected, if it indeed should be redirected at all.......then I think it ought to stay open a bit longer. And if it is going to be closed, it should be by a trusted user who has edited more than one page (and that in an edit war). sjorford →•← 22:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that you proposed the vfd in the first place, it's doubly improper for you to close it. There is an approximate 2/3 majority for redirect, yes. This is necessary but not sufficient for determining a vfd. I'm re-opening it again, and will keep re-opening it until it is closed by a trusted user who did not participate in the discussion. sjorford →•← 08:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Elizabeth II of Canada]] 

message: I believe that this article should be Moved to Elizabeth II. This meets Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).  Which states:
:Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
I challenge anyone to show me any common usage of her name where she is referred to as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom she is always only referred to as Queen Elizabeth II or just Elizabeth II.  Therefore one of these 2 should be used.  I think Elizabeth II is distinctive enough and that is the preferred option.  
It should also be noted that the policy on Historical names in titles specifically states that 
: "Convention: In general, use the most common form of the name used in English (not necessarily the name translated into English) and disambiguate the names of monarchs of modern countries in the format [[{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}]] (example: Edward I of England).
Queen Elizabeth II or even Elizabeth II are the common names she is known by and as disabiguation is not required those should be used. This would also address the issue that this article is about the person and not about her role as Queen of the UK and also address the issue that this is just one of many countries that she is officially queen of.  -- Webgeer June 29, 2005 17:54 (UTC)
* Strongly oppose' Wikipedia naming conventions place modern western monarchs in the form <name> <ordinal> of <name of state>. All monarchs are entered that way. She is not simply Queen Elizabeth II. She is Queen of the United Kingdom. It is standard accuracy to refer to her as such in a page about her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. To call her simply Queen Elizabeth II would be anglocentric. Wikipedia is not an British encyclopædia. It cannot simply use names in the form that is used in the UK. And what then we do if some other country has a queen called Elizabeth II. Call that queen Elizabeth II (the other one) lol FearÉIREANN(talk) 29 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)
*:If disambiguation were to be required in the future it can be addressed then.  However, as disambiguation is not required, there is no reason to dismbiguate it.  We generally don't disambiguate something, just because it could become necessary in the future.  This page is not a page about her role as Queen of the UK, this page is about the person.  -- Webgeer June 29, 2005 18:42 (UTC)
*::We actually do pre-emptive things to disambiguate - see the instructions. Knowing the frequency of Elisabeth as name (and as translation of e.g Isabel), I cannot vouch that there never was any other Elisabeth II. For example, check first all medieval French counties etc. And how about certain queens of Bohemia? 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 22:11 (UTC)
* Oppose. This has been talked about before we need consistency, and all our monarchs are named like this. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)
* Oppose, for the consistency reasons others have so well detailed above. Lord Bob June 29, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
* Oppose, and please browse the archives before proposing such moves, because this discussion has occurred at least once before. — Dan | Talk 29 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)
*:I actually did see that and it was sort of an "what do you think" question without any supporting arguments offered by either side.  I felt it was important to make a proper request to move based on the WP policies that I believe are sound and appropriate.  
*:In response to the critism about consistency.  If you look at :Category:Reigning_monarchs you will see that although this approach is most common, it is far from consistent.  I think it is important to note that Elizabeth II is somewhat unique as she is recognized thoughout the English world without any type of qualifier.  As for the comment about Anglocentric, it should be noted that I am not from the UK. I am in Canada and have lived in the US.  In both of these places the popular media virtually always refers to her as simply "Queen Elizabeth". (Whereas most other monarch will be referred to as Queen xxx of xxx in common media usage). -- Webgeer June 29, 2005 20:06 (UTC)
*:: I think that's simply because she is the most significant monarch in the modern world, and most of the others - Monaco, Luxembourg, Thailand, Bahrain, Netherlands, etc - are neither as influential nor as well known. This provides all the more reason to ensure that we're treating Elizabeth the same as we would any of the other monarchs. — Dan | Talk 29 June 2005 20:12 (UTC)
*:::Though I'm not sure simply titling the article "Elizabeth II" is the answer, I think that to treat "Elizabeth II the same as we would any other monarch" ignores the fact that Elizabeth II is like no other monarch.  She is 16 dinstinct and seperate legal entities combined in one person, neither one of which is supreme over any other.  Making it seem as though her role as Queen of the UK is superior to her role as, say, Queen of New Zealand is both inaccurate and presumptuous.  I personally believe the problem goes beyond simply this one article, and we need to take a lager look at the organization of and relationship between all articles pertaining to Elizabeth II and the Crown in the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 4 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
**"I think that to treat "Elizabeth II the same as we would any other monarch" ignores the fact that Elizabeth II is like no other monarch.  She is 16 dinstinct and seperate legal entities combined in one person"
This doesn't make her unique. Rather, it makes her like her father, her uncle and her grandfather, does it not? They were both kings of multiple realms. There are also a number of cases of this happening in history (particularly in the British Royal family where a number of Kings were also Electors of Hanover) Do you suggest we retitle George VI of the United Kingdom and George V of the United Kingdom as well not to mention the articles from George I up to but not including Victoria??67.70.21.67 4 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
*::::As I've pointed out to you repeatedly, there are literally dozens of monarchs who have ruled over several separate thrones.  Go to the appropriate naming policy and argue there about this issue, if you'd like. john k 4 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
* Oppose. Strongly oppose creating a non-standardly named article, as argued above. -- Arwel 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
* Oppose.  Not this again. john k 29 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)
::John, you forgot the *sigh* at the end. lol And yes, I know how you feel. *mega sigh* *groan* FearÉIREANN(talk) 29 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)
* Oppose. See John's comments. Berek 30 June 2005 08:06 (UTC)
* Oppose twenty zillion million quadrillion times. Deb 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)
* Oppose as above (twenty million bagillion etc. times too) Craigy  (talk) June 30, 2005 20:57 (UTC)
* Oppose, not this again. *sighs*. Again. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
* Oppose for consistency's sake.  -Sean Curtin July 2, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
* Oppose, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), consistency. Gdr 4 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
*Oppose the "mystery" of one monarch being several may tantalize  those who fantasise about the monarchy but in the real world it's a bit of a bore. 67.70.21.67 4 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
: Clear consensus here to leave it as it is - the result is not moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Article to '''Elizabeth II'''

message: I made the changes to the ancestry aspect of this article, because i found it sloppy. I think if your going to mention the fact she is descended kings of England going back to the House of Wessex then you should mention that this is not where her claim comes from and who it does. As well as her claim to the throne of Scotland. Also, I (hopefully for some) clarified the tricky relations she has with her fellow monarchs in Europe. I don't personally think that it is important to her ancestry, but since the consensus it is, I worked on it. I didn't mean to tread on anybody who contributed to this article, but just hoped to clear up some the things I found confusing.       Harun77 12 July 2005
: Her claim comes from her patrilineal descent, which is why it should come first. Your sentence about her claim to the throne doesn't make sense, and at any rate, there is not a separate claim to England and Scotland any more. If it says she is related to most other ruling monarchs, you don't need to list exceptions. JPD 10:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: Before I get showered with tonnes of sighs and complaints I’ll say that I do realize this particular topic has been discussed time, times and half-time, however I feel there is need for some more discussing. I propose that the name of the article be changed from “Elizabeth II of the UK” to “Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms”. This following Wikipedia’s aforementioned guidelines for naming monarchs in the style of “<name> <ordinal> of <name of state>”. 
Now it is a point that “Commonwealth Realms” is not a state but the Queen functions her role under several separate interlaced monarchies and should therefore be regarded tending to equal importance to each of her thrones. It is common fact, obviously, that her role in the UK has been far more mentioned both in the media and popular knowledge than her functions as Queen of the other realms. But that does not mean she should be addressed as the UK’s only.
The current title of this page is an insult to the thrones of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. How can Wikipedia possibly consider itself neutral if with this usage it is saying that the role of Queen of the UK is the paramount of Elizabeth’s duties and that all other are but mere formalities. If so then it is really a wonder that so many “important laws” in these countries are consigned under her name.
I propose this style for neutrality’s sake. It is impossible to put into word just how infuriating it is - for her non-British subjects - to see Queen Elizabeth often assumed only to be the United Kingdom’s. If “Elizabeth II of <insert name of any Commonwealth Realm other than the UK>” can be considered a proper re-direction to the main article; why then can’t “Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom” be considered as a re-direction as well. Is it too sacred to be meddled with that it must be the title of the article forsaking her other styles? It is time Wikipedia stopped the bias and accept all of her roles. (unsigned comment by LJLeBlanc 02:47, July 15, 2005)
:There seem to be several confusions within that, but I'll skip them for now and say that one problem with your suggestion is that many people won't know what's meant by "commonwealth realms". -- Hoary 02:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
::She doesn't excerise her powers as Queen of Canada etc on a regular basis, she was born in the UK and speaks British, so she should be EII of the UK. She is only Queen through a British law, and through her descend from the monarchs of England and Scotland. Astrotrain 17:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
:::To the contrary, the Queen exercises her "powers" as Queen of Canada every day as the Crown is the basis for all law in Canada, and the foundation of all the institutions which exercise it.  While she was most certainly born in the UK, she speaks English and French, not "British."  And she is Queen through the constitutional law of sixteen separate and sovereign nations.  It's precisely these types of misconceptions that are fostered by calling Elizabeth II only "of the United Kingdom". It's been said before that "Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms" cannot be used because it is not a technical legal term.  That may be true.  However, neither is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" technically correct as her proper title, in the case of the UK, is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories."  So, is Wikipedia really operating with accuracy or simply bias? --gbambino 14:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizabeth lives in London.  During the time James was king of both countries, he also lived in London.  As to the subject coming up again and again, that is because you bring it up again and again. john k 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Banging Dead Horse) Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth Realms 

message: I have proposed to move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to simply Elizabeth II. She is queen of more than the UK as is seen in the opening paragraph of the article. The standard convention of Name of Country is useless in this situation as her realms are many. That may work with Carl Gustaf of Sweden but doesnt really work with the current situation. EdwinHJ | Talk
===Support move===
# Support EdwinHJ | Talk 17:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: # Support EdwinHJ | Talk 17:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support move

message: #Sigh. Not again!. Strongly oppose wasting any more time on this subject - agree with JTD (FearÉIREANN). -- Arwel 18:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose move

message: This has been debated endlessly and the decision has been taken over and over and over and over again, the last time only 9 days ago when 92% voted not to move the page. This article ain't moving. Get over it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional comments

message: That Wikipedia stop wasting time on endless revoting on this (goddamned) issue and ban votes on this issue from this page for at least six months.  The use of "g**d*****" is REALLY offensive to many wikipedians and should be avoided. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote to stop endless revoting on this issue for 6 months

message: # FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For

message: # Banning voting does not help create a consensus 80.255 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: * This is silly. Just leave the page alone, or move it back some vandal moves it. There's no need to multiply pointless votes.  Gdr 21:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: shouldn't she be Lady of Mann since she is of course female
Dudtz 7/21/05 2:25PM EST (question moved from Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 3 -- Francs2000 | Talk  18:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: explains the answer to your question. -- Francs2000 | Talk  18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope there is a Wikipedia page somewhere that explains his question too! Resorting to external links, whatever next ;-). Pcb21| Pete 22:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now that I've just added it.  Lord of Mann -- Francs2000 | Talk  22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of Mann? 

message: There seems to be some inconsistency between different Wikipedia articles with respect to the use of royal assent.
In the article on Queen Elizabeth it says that "The Queen may legally grant or withhold Royal Assent to Bills, but no monarch has refused his or her assent to a Bill since 1708."
However, in the article on royal assent it says that "While the Royal Assent has not been withheld in Great Britain (and in the United Kingdom) since 1708, it has often been withheld in British colonies and former colonies by Governors acting on royal instructions." and "The power to withhold the Royal Assent was notably exercised by Alberta's Lieutenant Governor, John C. Bowen, in 1937, in respect of three bills passed under William Aberhart's Social Credit Government. Two bills sought to put banks under the authority of the province, thereby interfering with the federal government's powers. The third, the Accurate News and Information Bill, purported to force newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories to which the provincial cabinet objected."
I believe that the two pages should be consistent. The article on Elizabeth II gives the impression that royal assent is a completely ceremonial power which is never excercised anywhere, without mentioning that it was used in Britain's colonies, including the United States.
[[200.180.6.101 23:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withholding Royal Assent