Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

When to feature on the main page?

When are the authors of this excellent article thinking of submitting it to be featured on the main page? The Jubilee is coming up. --Inops (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jubilee has been underway since February. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the bank holiday at least. --Inops (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Closer is her official birthday in Canada, next Monday; the Prince of Wales will be to celebrate it and the Diamond Jubilee. ;)

More seriously: Accession Day was likely the day the article should've been on the main page. Too many events in different countries on different dates to pick just one now, I think. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TFAR#June 5. DrKiernan (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up - I've rescheduled this article's main page appearance for June 2, the first day of the jubilee celebration. (I did it so June 5 could go to Transit of Venus) Raul654 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As that's the anniversary of the Coronation it seems the most appropriate date. Richerman (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Montreal DJ trick

I wonder if DrKiernan could here offer a proper explanation as to why he repeatedly deletes from the article mention of the 1995 prank call made to the Queen by a Montreal radio station DJ in which he managed to get her to unknowingly give her opinion on the outcome of a major referendum in Canada (namely, that on the separation of Quebec); his edit summary of "trivial" simply doesn't cut it. A constitutional monarch making public experssion of his or her personal opinion on a political matter is quite significant, even if deceit was the cause; perhaps the trickery makes the particular event more significant. Such a thing has never happened to Elizabeth before that day or after. It deserves its small place in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It worsens the prose by breaking up the flow of the annus horribilis section.

It associates the prank call with annus horribilis even though the events are unrelated.

It's trivial. The article should cover material in due proportion to its importance. If every biography of Elizabeth II mentions something, then it should be in the article; but if no biography of her ever mentions it, then it should be cut as irrelevant. This is never mentioned. If you do a google news search for example, your source is the only news article that comes up, and if you do a book search you just get wikipedia ripoffs and one or two books on famous pranks. If you do a general google search the websites found relate to Brassard or prank calls not to the Queen. It is famous and notable with regard to Brassard, and possibly as a prank call, but it is not notable from the royal angle. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is trivial at best. I say cut it. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after about five minutes of searching, I've five sources that cover the affair (six, if we count a link that I know had information on it but is now dead, though possibly recoverable): [1],[2], [3], [4], [5]

The requirement that all content of this article must be first mentioned in another biography is one of your own creation; it is not a Wikipedai policy or guideline.

"Trivial" remains a bit of a feeble criticism; compared to what? The political leanings of the Queen's sisters-in-law's husbands? The embroidery on Elizabeth's wedding dress? I think not. As I said, she publicly (without knowing it was so) expressed her opinion on a major political matter. That's notable for a constitutional monarch like Elizabeth; that she made her feelings known is noted in some of the links I provided, though so was it deemed worthy to mention the odd absence of any backlash against the Queen and a few theories as to why that was the case.

Anyone can note that no mention of Brassard was made in the sentence deleted from this article; the sentence was brief and the focus all on Elizabeth. There are better ways to work in information that's misplaced (if indeed it is) than deleting it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw those four links (one is duplicated) earlier in your sandbox, but they're insignificant. To demonstrate, it is easy to find sources that say Elizabeth wore a cerise cashmere coat on the 8th March 2012 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] but that does not mean that we should put "Elizabeth wore a cerise cashmere coat on 8 March 2012" in the article. These are transient news items that soon pass into oblivion. What you need is proof that this is a lasting and notable event that often draws academic comment or serious coverage. It only draws such comment highly infrequently if at all, so it isn't notable enough for the main article. DrKiernan (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What a spurious argument. The links were never provided to show how many links there are; they were provided to counter your claim that "[my] source is the only news article that comes up, and if you do a book search you just get wikipedia ripoffs and one or two books on famous pranks." That statement simply wasn't true. If you want only books (even though newspapers, like the New York Times, which is among the links provided, meet WP:RS just fine; it's only you who's deemed them inadmissible), I've given you already a book it's mentioned in; it's also covered in Jean Chretien's autobiography. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar. I did a google news search for "Pierre Brassard" "Elizabeth II" and I got one link. Your "argument" for inclusion is unconvincing. If you think it relevant to Chretien's life then try putting it in his article, though autobiographical sources are generally frowned upon when third-party sources are available. DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Who are you conversing with? Nobody called you a liar. You made an untrue statement; I'm not either so naive or dishonest myself as to jump to the conclusion you deliberately uttered what you knew to be false.

Your argument for exclusion - "If it's not in a biographical book, it's trivial, it's trivial, it's trivial!" - is unconvincing; it's a rule you made up and which isn't even applied consistently to the content of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee

I'm surprised that there is a section 'Golden jubilee and beyond' which has a mention of the Diamond Jubilee but there isn't a seperate section for the Diamond Jubilee with a pointer to the main article Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II and a summary of the plans for the celebrations. Is there a reason why not? Richerman (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A summary of celebration plans is far too detailed for this article. The golden jubilee is simply an easy place to make a divide. CMD (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I'm making myself clear. I'm talking about a seperate section with a couple of sentences saying that the Jubilee will be celebrated in Britain and around the commonwealth. Surely that's not too detailed? At the moment the only mention is half a sentence in the lead and a sentence that says "Elizabeth plans to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, marking 60 years as Queen." That seems hardly adequate to me for an event that is so rare and is being celebrated in many countries around the world. And as as we're already nearly half way through the Jubilee year and celebrations have already started it's not even accurate. Richerman (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of sentences don't need their own section. We already have "Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 marks 60 years as Queen. She is the longest-lived and second-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, and the second-longest-serving current head of state (after King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand)" which demonstrates the rarity of the event. What else do you think needs to be added? CMD (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than try to explain I've added something. If you don't like the change feel free to revert it, but when the whole reason for this article appearing on the main page is the jubilee it would seem bizarre to me not to find a heading referring to it in the contents section. I'm sure that if there isn't something under its own headng with a clear pointer to the article aout the celebrations, then on the day well-meaning people will be making all sorts of inappropriate additions because they think the article is missing something. Richerman (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Its a bit bizarre that the Diamond Jubilee is a subsection of the Golden Jubilee section? Yes the Golden Jubilee section says "and beyond" but still its an odd placement? beardybloke (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Empress of Pakistan?

Folks, I'm pretty sure Pakistan became a republic quite a long time ago. E3 is not empress of Pakistan any longer, and the article needs to be amended to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.38.194 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The whole line reads "On the death of her father in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon". That means that at that time she was the queen of Pakistan. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition the subsequent sentence makes the situation quite clear: "Since her accession, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some realms became republics." Manning (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

See Queen of Pakistan --Rumping (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To all who visit this page

The Introduction of this article is a GROSS EMBARRASSMENT.

i have had a vey prolonged argument with editors who have a quorum against my stance of one about this paragraph, the second in the introduction. Archive 27

The paragraph constitutes the major summary of her life. It says almost nothing about the woman herself:

In 1947, she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with whom she has four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. In 1992, which Elizabeth termed her annus horribilis (horrible year), Charles and Andrew separated from their wives, Anne divorced, and a severe fire damaged part of Windsor Castle. Revelations continued on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and they divorced in 1996. The following year, Diana died in a Paris car crash, and the media criticised the royal family for remaining in seclusion in the days before her funeral. Elizabeth's personal popularity rebounded after she appeared in public and has subsequently remained high.

This is the main descriptive paragraph in the introduction about the entire history of the Queen's life.

I have asked repeatedly

• why an unpleasant year twenty two years ago is still cited as if it is the most important year in the Queen's reign.

22 years ago ? is it 2014 already ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• why Charles and Diana can't be summed up in a single sentence?
• Why the divorce of the Queen's other children is relevant to HER biography to the extent that it takes preeminence in the INTRO over HER successes?
• What is the relevance in the introductory paragraph of the stuff about the Queen "staying in seclusion" ?
• Can't all this stuff be summarised in one sentence that states that the Queen's popularity has gone through challenges particularly at .... " I suggested that a single paragraph should summarise "all the challenges e.g. Wars, death of Mountbatten etc.

I was informed, by the people who wrote this article, that the wars Northern Ireland, Falkland Islands, Iraq, Afghanistan) were not significant to the Queen's reign, as she wasn't the "political" leader (or some such nonsense) so they did not need including in a paragraph summarising the Queen's challenges. !

I have repeatedly requested that a paragraph with selection of the Queen's MAJOR EVENTS and SUCCESSES be included in the summary.

My suggestions have included

1. trip to Ireland
2. first visit to Pope
3. address to US Congress.

I have have been told :

1. this is just your list. someone else might think other things are important
2. Visit to Pope.... not important because Edward VIII visited a pope (while not king) so what's the big deal? A Catholic journalist of my acquaintance cited it as frigging awesome!'
3. Why is a visit to Ireland so important. Shucks! Can't you work it out?
4. Why is addressing Congress important. I am tolld that Other heads of state have done that. Other heads of countries that had once ruled the USA, and from under whose yoke they broke free?

My response was that I was not determined on my points precisely but that some such list is an essential part to indicate what the Queen has actually done during the last 60 years, except , 22 frigging years ago, telling Parliament that she had had a really bad year.

Why the hell does that one bad year have to haunt the poor woman for the rest of her reign?

Why are the editors of this page so extraordinarily short sighted and closed minded that they cannot even begin to accept that a broader view is necessary?

Oh, I am told, every biography mentions the "annus horriblis, and therefore it must be the highlight of her reign!!!

Can we have some:

• Common sense
• Common decency
• Respect, as per Wikipedia policy, for the living individual for whom we, Wikipedia, have continued to present only the worst and gloomiest element as the most significant for months and years. What I want to see in the introduction is BALANCE. Details such as whether or not the Queen waved to the crowds before Diana's funeral are not the stuff of the introduction to her entire life!!

As a Wikipedian of long standing and large contribution, I find the slant of the Introduction of this article a GROSS EMBARRASSMENT. I am doubly embarrassed that it has become the featured article, just at this time.

TOMORROW is the major event. Is there any chance of getting this fixed?

See Archive 27

Amandajm (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Being "a Wikipedian of long standing", you know that progress is not achieved by any one editor demanding changes by tomorrow or any other artificially imposed deadline. I sympathise with your basic position, and I'm sure others do too, but the way you're going about is just not going to work. It will only antagonise people and entrench whatever resistance to your proposed changes they may have. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact stamping your feet and SHOUTING AT PEOPLE never achieves very much at all in the adult world. Richerman (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Richerman, look at the archive page and you will see that I did all the polite and reasonable stuff first, explaining it, gently, over and over, ad infinitum.

Tomorrow is the Big Day, hence the urgency.

Read, think, and make a worthwhile comment!

How insensitive and inappropriate does the introduction have to be, to make a person as angry as I am?

Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is, as I explained to you on my talk page, exactly why you are in no position to be prosecuting this case at the moment. We need calm people to work on articles, otherwise they'll just reflect the madness of their authors. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Get this: You are all upset about my poor Wikipedia manners.

STUFF my manners!

MY concern is Wikipedia's extraordinarily bad protocol (total lack of manners) in allowing such an unbalanced introduction to an article to remain, and use it for such a significant purpose, on such a significant day in the life of the living person that the article represents.

We need a concerted Wiki effort to fix the real problem.

It is very convenient to see me as the problem, just so long as I keep shouting.

I am just an old lady whose feeling don't matter very much at this moment.

BUT Consider the feelings of Her Majesty the Queen, when you insist on dredging up the stupid details of 1992 (20 blinking years ago!) and 1996 as part of the introduction to her biography, leaving out every significant thing she has ever done!

ASK YOURSELF how many people still remember or care that the Queen stayed indoors for a few days after Diana died. Is THAT the most important fact in the Queen's entire life? It is the only personal act that is described in the Introduction. Wasn't lowering the Union Flag to half-mast (instead of flying her standard while she was in residence) just a tad more significant?

Amandajm (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The introduction goes on to say "Elizabeth's personal popularity rebounded after she appeared in public and has subsequently remained high." It's to her credit that she has weathered these very public storms and still remains popular. It is only the introduction - the rest of the article goes on to say a lot more. I'm a bit confused that you're saying you want it fixed before the "Big day". The article is TFA on the main page now, which in the context of the article is the big day isn't it? There will be a big surge in people reading it today - not tomorrow. Richerman (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, love the idea that you think the Queen has nothing better to do than read her Wikipedia page. You do realise you sound like someone who puts their dog in a Union Jack waistcoat and hands out BNP leaflets in shopping centres, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.56.93 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What a helpful comment. How unfortunate that now it has been posted it cannot be deleted, but hopefully an administrator will come along and give you a serious warning for dragging a discussion with an already vehemently emotional editor down to the level of personal attacks.--78.144.171.215 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

When I read the lead, I too immediately thought that it gave undue weight to the marital difficulties of her children - the year of 1992. The lead is supposed to summarise the whole article and focus upon the subject, not cherry-pick sensational items about other people - see WP:COATRACK. Andrew Davidson (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As it stands the lead does not provide a balanced summary of the article. Furthermore I would question whether the Queen's popularily did really drop after the death of Diana as is implied by the statement "Elizabeth's personal popularity rebounded after she appeared in public." One should be careful not to confuse media criticism with unpopularity; an attempt at measurering the latter can only be made by conducting opionion polls or other such surveying techniques. The body of the article says only that "royal family's seclusion caused public dismay" - not the same thing as personal unpopularity. Greenshed (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the paragraph beginning "In 1947, she married Prince Philip..." reads rather oddly in the introduction to an article that is as long as this one, and it gives undue weight to the events described in the paragraph. A summary of a person's life doesn't normally include a litany of the marital difficulties of that person's children, for example, or the fact that the person's house (or one of them) suffered a fire some 20 years ago. Of course, everything that is in this paragraphs needs to be discussed in its due place in the article (as indeed it is), and some brief mention could be made of the events of 1992 and the years following, but I doubt the amount of details that is currently at the top of the article is sensible. I'd also agree that the Queen's visit to Ireland, for instance, might merit a place in the introduction – that was truly a unique event and quite a defining moment in relations between Ireland and the UK. Ondewelle (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it wise to impose major changes to the lead without first getting consensus for draft changes on the talk page. I would also advise that changes are taken slowly and stepwise (discussing each change in turn) to prevent discussions ranging over too many issues at once. DrKiernan (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the changes that were made in response to the criticism of the article above

Dr Keirnan, As you are well aware, 200,000 people are looking at the page today. I have negotiated with you. I have sought concensus with you and the other "owner" of this page, repeatedly.

There is no longer any time for that. It is not a time for piecemeal, bit by bit change. You had the opportunity. I made the suggestions, and left the implementation, and choice of examples to you and your mate. You argued against, and deleted every change, and ignored every suggestion.

You have shown yourself incapable of negotiation. You and the other writer have trotted out your consensus of two against one. Well, it's not like that anymore.

You now have here a number of criticisms about the imbalance of the intro of the article. It needs redressing.

They need fixing right now, neatly and quickly, without any piecemeal stuff. Because thousands of readers are accessing the page now.

As you are well aware, everything I have written is backed by references that can hardly be in question.

The quote from Boris is current, and significant. It is a great summary.

Read the criticism on this page, read the references to the MOS and stop playing the ownership game.

Amandajm (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the changes are good but others not. Visiting Germany for example is hardly a notable thing for a German family to do. DrKiernan (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To say that the Queen's family is "German" seems a bit ridiculous. She has some German forebears, yes, but the closest one usually cited, Queen Mary, was born and brought up in England and certainly didn't consider herself in any way "German". George I was Hannoverian, but he was her sixth-great-grandfather! The Queen has no particular German connections, doesn't speak German, and has never thought of herself as German. In any case, her visit to Germany was in her role as head of state, not because of any family relationships. Ondewelle (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For perspective, see my comments at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 5#Ancestry. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

We encourage detailed explanations of reverted edits especially when there is a vast ongoing talk about the matter pls... Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Moxy (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DrKeirnan, That is nitpicking! It is listed on the Queen's Jubilee site as significant!

Don't you know any history? The Kaiser, a cousin, went to war against England! And then, after that, there was that other little problem, World War II, in which Germany was their major enemy. This is not about a German family going on a nice holiday to see their relatives.

The naivety of that comment about Germany indicates why you really are not the right person to be deciding what is pertinent and what is not.

You have continually used comments that show the same deplorable comprehension of world affairs to block every improvement that I have tried to make.

This is no time for nitpicking about whether Germany is in as a reference point. It is a moment for major change.

I know that getting this one the front page meant a lot to you, and you want to keep your work just the way it is. Well, save it then, to your own computer.

It isn't time for pussy-footing. Most of this are the Good and Bad events given as most significant on the Queen's Jubilee website. Are you really going to argue with that source, (not to mention Boris Johnson)?

You have been told clearly that there is an imbalance, by four different people.

The reason it needs fixing NOW is that this morning, already, there have been 200,000 hits and its only 8.00 AM in London.

Amandajm (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead isn't my work Amanda. It is not how I would write it if I had my way. It is as it has been written by multiple editors over many discussions. Perhaps you should focus on the content rather than me? I really don't think we need a quote from Boris in the lead, or anywhere in the article; that was one of the worst things about the new lead. DrKiernan (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

'

I am perfectly happy for you to go out and find another equally pertinent quote from an equally notable person. But do it now because it's urgent. And if it is woosy, and journalistic, don't do it! If it drags up blessed Diana, then it's not appropriate. Find a quote and make it good and current. it is today isn't it?

Amandajm (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr Keirnan, I cannot believe that you have reverted that introduction again , after nit picking a couple of things that you didn't like and making a comment about Germany that displayed a deplorable lack of awareness about politics and world history? What is the matter? This isn't a time to argue. There is a consensus. The consensus is that the Introduction is unbalanced. You cannot continue deleting changes that have been requested, without getting blocked. Please don't create an edit war! Please undo your last change!

Amandajm (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you, the introduction said Diana died in 1996. I hardly think that the correction of such obvious mistakes merits a block. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously a typo. Reverting all the additions, rather than changing one digit seems a bit extreme, doesn't it? Amandajm (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Your additions, apart from the repetitions and irrelevancies, are still there. I haven't reverted all of them. Nor have I returned the previous lead, or added back the extra bits about 1992. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies! I thought you had reverted the lot.

Now, try putting back the visit of Hirohito, e and you will have something like an appropriate recognition of her achievements. Amandajm (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan, stop the stupid reverting! It needs a quote to round it of. Stop stuffing around with what is there, and go looking for one that you prefer! You can't edit-war and creatively edit simultaneously! Be creative! What have you got against Boris anyway? Merlin's Doowacker! Do I have to go and find a dozen quotes and let you dictate the one that is acceptable, or can you find it for yourself?

Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Boris Johnson quote

After 60 years on the throne she has proved the value of the monarchy in uniting the nation, and she has put the republicans to a spectacular rout ... In her 60 years on the throne she has seen the people of this country grow incomparably richer, healthier and (arguably) happier than they were in 1952. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9294141/Put-out-the-bunting.-This-is-the-age-of-the-Second-Elizabethans.html

The lead is rather lengthy. Do we really need it? DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan, stop the stupid reverting! It needs a quote to round it of. Stop stuffing around with what is there, and go looking for one that you prefer! You can't edit-war and creatively edit simultaneously! Be creative! What have you got against Boris anyway? Merlin's Doowacker! Do I have to go and find a dozen quotes and let you dictate the one that is acceptable, or can you find it for yourself? Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll undo the last revert, but I would like to hear other voices about whether this quote is appropriate or needed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I do think a quote about her reign, which is widely admired even by some very staunch republicans is appropiate, but instead of Boris Johnson perhaps it should read 'Mayor of London' or perhaps a similar quote by someone else. Dynaro (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather have a quote, but I think that the present referenced statement is good solution. Amandajm (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Porn images on Elizabeth II page

On two separate machines, porn images are flashing up when I access this page. Can someone please investigate immediately! 86.176.33.115 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Can some one say HACKED???--JOJ ^Hutton 13:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's all template vandalism from an editor using IP range 188.. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My daughter was also greeted by porn when visiting this page earlier today. I guess thousands of other visitors, including many children, must have had the same disturbing experience. Should not all templates used in featured articles be at least semi-protected to ensure that such shameful and damaging episodes do not happen in the future? BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Right... The problem is /B/, and not the fact that the "educational charity" of Wikipedia is hosting a video of a nun having sex with a dog or 34 separate home-made masturbation videos. Anywhere else would be thanking Random for exposing security holes, but the Wikipedia reaction is "what's the best way to hide this?". 188.28.8.132 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There are rather better ways to expose security holes than vandalising articles. As for the nun video, it's been shown at the National Film Theatre, and reviewed in 'Time Out' magazine, who described it as 'excruciatingly inventive'. Certainly we have rather too many GIFS of male masturbation... Nevertheless, the issue of template vandalism is an important one - does anyone know which template was vandalised? The Cavalry (Message me) 12:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

At least:

• Template:British Royal Family
• Template:Charles, Prince of Wales
• Template:Elizabeth II
• Template:NPG name
• Template:Npg name

BabelStone (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2012

Please change -

She is also head of state of the Crown Dependencies

to

She is also head of state of the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.

You may cite -

the British Foreign Office http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/publications-and-documents/treaties/uk-overseas-territories/list-crown-dependencies-overseas

British Overseas Territories Act 2002 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/8/contents

You may forward link to this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territory

StillStranded (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Added. DrKiernan (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Poor Opening Paras

This article has far worse opening paras than for any major figure in Wikipedia that I can remember. Compare with Obama or Lady Gaga.

The article starts with barely interesting information that would be largely incomprehensible to a typical reader. Epic fail, Wiki. Get it right. Stop playing Wiki-correct social games and produce an article that is at marginally comparable to that of the Britannica. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph of text should be seperated to avoid the clutter. The first paragraph should be fairly brief, with the second further elaborating. (On an additional note, why has someone added 'Queen' back before her name. This is not included in any of her predecessors except for Victoria who was the only monarch of her name.) Example:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[note 1]) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. She is also head of state of the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.

On her accession in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Between 1956 and 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some realms became republics. Today, in addition to the first four aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. Her reign of 60 years is the second longest for a British monarch; only Queen Victoria has reigned longer at 63 years. Dynaro (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Yep, that seems to be the right direction. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

More about the poor opening paragraphs

Once again we have an editor apparently taking the stand over a point that we argued months ago: and deleting vital information from the introduction. The Wars in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan have once more been deleted out of the Introduction, under the mistaken belief that the conflicts are not relevant to the Queen because she is a figurehead, and not a decision-making prime minister, parliamentarian or president.

Please stop this deletion of important facts! If you do not understand why the Wars in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan are among the most important events in the the last 20 years of the Queen's reign, then I suggest that you go and listen to any one of her recent speeches, to find out what is on her mind. Even as a "figurehead" monarch, she has to lead. She might not lead in the decision-making, she might not lead into the battle, but, by God, she does lead in keeping up the moral of her subjects!

Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Waffling and journalise!

Just rereading parts of the article. Here we have two of the main paragraphs summarising about a decade:

Though generally healthy throughout her life, in 2003 she had keyhole surgery on both knees, and in June 2005 she cancelled several engagements after contracting a bad cold. In October 2006, she missed the opening of the new Emirates Stadium because of a strained back muscle that had been troubling her since the summer.[144] Two months later, she was seen in public with a bandage on her right hand, which led to press speculation of ill health.[145] She had been bitten by one of her corgis while she was separating two that were fighting.[146]

In May 2007, The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported claims from unnamed sources that the Queen was "exasperated and frustrated" by the policies of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that she had shown concern that the British Armed Forces were overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that she had raised concerns over rural and countryside issues with Blair repeatedly.[147] She was, however, said to admire Blair's efforts to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.[148] On 20 March 2008, at the Church of Ireland St Patrick's Cathedral, Armagh, the Queen attended the first Maundy service held outside of England and Wales.[149] At the invitation of Irish President Mary McAleese, in May 2011 the Queen made the first state visit to the Republic of Ireland by a British monarch.[150]

Can we get REAL please

• The country is at WAR and Wikipedia editors write about effing fighting corgis! '

Do we really need to know that she had a cold, a strained back muscle and a bandage on her hand? Is this the stuff for an encyclopedia?

• The daily Telegraph reports she was frustrated with this, concerned with that, raised issues with this and admired so-on! What total waffle! State what happened. STATE that the country was/is still at war.

Amandajm (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is truly ghastly writing!

1990s

(Paragraph 1)

In 1991, in the wake of victory in the Gulf War, Elizabeth became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress.[121] The following year, she attempted to save the failing marriage of her eldest son, Charles, by counselling him and his wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, to reconcile.[122]

(Paragraph 2)

In a speech on 24 November 1992, to mark the 40th anniversary of her accession, the Queen called 1992 her annus horribilis, meaning horrible year.[123]

So what is wrong with this?

• The first paragraph opens with a sentence which links two extremely important facts, turning one of them (the country being involved in a WAR) into a phrase describing the time of the event.

No. Gulf War requires a stand-alone sentence, at the very least! It might be worth mentioning who the Prime Minister was.

The second part of the sentence, that the British Monarch addressed US Congress, has enormous historic significance and also requires its own stand-alone sentence. It might be worth mentioning who the President was.

• Now, take a look at where the paragraph goes from there: the following year the Queen urges her son and his wife to stay married. Wow! Historic stuff!

The fact that they split is an encyclopedic event which had effect on the monarchy. The fact that the Queen urged them to patch up their marriage does not follow on in the same paragraph as "Gulf War" and "US Congress". How can this possibly be tagged on to the "Gulf War" with "the following year" as a lead in?

• So after that comes a paragraph break, and then the "annus horribilis" is described in detail. The non-event about the Queen telling them to reconcile goes in this paragraph, if it goes anywhere. It did happen, apparently, the year following the US Congress thing, so that makes it 1992!

Why do I find this all so annoying?

Simply because when I previously attempted to improve the grammar and the balance of this article, and sort out problems like this, I was chased away and continually reverted.

Right. Well, I'm back. And I'm staying. And I am here to give this article some sort of reasonable balance.

Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, there needs to be a degree of balance. There's alot of short sentences followed by other short sentences with no connection to the first sentences. I would support a move to clean them up. Dynaro (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Article lead

Hi. Following Charles, Prince of Wales and Queen Victoria as examples, the article lead is now (once again) "Elizabeth II..." as opposed to "Queen Elizabeth II...". As far as I'm aware, this is a consistent practice across Wikipedia. If anyone can provide counter-examples to this practice, I'd be fascinated to read and study them. Otherwise, this article's lead should remain "Elizabeth II...". Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You've sort of contradicted yourself, because Victoria has Queen in bold as well. I know what you mean and I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that the bold part must exactly match the article title. I believe Queen Elizabeth II is the most common way she is referred to, so I will revert your change. There may well be an argument for renaming this article, and I would likely support that, but no doubt it has been discussed before. (Would including Queen but not bold satisfy you?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

PS User:Andrew Davidson who replaced this word a few days ago said "per talk and WP:COMMONNAME" but I can't see any discussion about this particular point on the talk page. Perhaps it has been archived. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's discussed under the section entitled "The Queen" above. Richerman (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the serious omissions in the lead

I cannot imagine how Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith managed to be left out of the introduction. The Queen herself seems to take these roles very seriously, judging by her speeches.

I have added them.

Amandajm (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Another of the little problems in this article that show a failure to understand the implications of facts and events:

• On 6 February 1952, they had just returned to their Kenyan home, .... when word arrived of the death of the Elizabeth's father.

No. In the context of an encyclopaedic statement that this person has died, he is not "Elizabeth's father". He is "the King".

The sentence is in the context of Elizabeth's Accession, not in the context of private morning. It is the momentous incident that was to change her life. And it was momentous to the King's subjects.

Amandajm (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that he was the King, and there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with how it was written. Saying "the King" makes it more cold and distant, as though she was an American Vice President succeeding on the death of her boss. -Rrius (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And it is just that sort of misunderstanding of the context of the article, and the context of the events that indicates that this article needs revision.

On the question of "Edward", "Prince of Wales" is correct. "Edward, Prince of Wales" is correct.

On the matter of Crawfie's statements, they are either abbreviated or "out", Having stated how he was widely perceived, there is no need for a bit, by bit, breakdown by one person. The quote is redundant. It could be made into a footnote. However "prince without a country" sums it up very well.

On the matter of the King's health and the date- It is an encyclopedia. Clearly dated events take the date first for easy encyclopaedic reference. It is standard practice. It is also standard in academic papers.

If this article didn't have serious problems, I wouldn't be doing it. Stop being precious about it, and remeber it's an encyclopedia, not a women's magazine.

Amandajm (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Heir presumptive

Rrius, the reason why it matters whether a male child was "born yet" is that in Elizabeth's situation, with no brother, she was "heir presumptive". If a brother was born she would no longer be "heir presumptive". She was only the heir (presumed the heir) as long as she had no brother. That is what presumptive means, and why it is now clearly explained as a "proviso". I

Seriously, Rrius, if you don't understand that, and you don't understand the difference between the King being dead, rather than "Elizabeth's father" being dead, then you are the wrong person to be trying to amend and delete my edits!.

Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk about it. I understand the concept, and your wording, whatever your reasoning, is convoluted and inferior to what was there before. -Rrius (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Also, if you are only making that edit and talking here, why do you have an {{inuse}} template up. It's bad form to add it while others are clearly actively editing, but it is even worse to do so when you seem to be doing other things. -Rrius (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict here is what I was writing.

It is not about "reasoning". It is about "reasons".

• The reason that Elizabeth was "heir presumptive" (the presumed heir) is that their was no male heir. The explanation is not about "heir apparent" (which is what a male child would have been). It is about "heir presumptive" . Why is it that she was only the "presumed" heir? Because, at that time, there was no son in the family. Had a son been born, then she was no longer "heir presumptive".

• The reason why the King is referred to as "the King" is because that is what he was, to Elizabeth, as his subject, as well as to all his realms.

The situation of "monarch" is very different to the situation of president. It is a vocation, not a job. The person is there for life. There status is much greater than a presidents (regardless of the fact that they have nothing like the power.) In Public, the Duke bows to his Queen. The only people in the world who treat her on equal terms are the other two queens regnant, Beatrix of the Netherlands and Magarethe of Denmark.

Likewise, the King. The death of Elizabeth's father was much more than the loss of her father. And, as I have pointed out, this is an encyclopaedia. An event, like the death of the king, needs to be stated as an historical event.

I am not being "a jerk". I want to see this done correctly. It is not a magazine. It's not CNN. It is an encyclopaedia. It is beyond my comprehension why you are being precious about maintaining a more journalistic style of writing.

Amandajm (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is unnatural to say it was the death of the King when you are talking about her father. Further, for Elizabeth, the death of the King was far more than the death of her king because it was the death of her father. That he was the King and it prompted her accession is well covered by the rest of the material around it, making the lifeless and tone-deaf choice of saying "the King" completely unnecessary. Why you think that actually noting her more obvious relationship with him is somehow more journalistic than encyclopedic is incomprehensible. There is no reason to specify in that particular sentence the constitutional relationship between them and no reason not to emphasize the human one. Finally, I already told you I understand the heiress presumptive concept. Perhaps you don't see how you are being insulting and combative, but if you don't you should really take a closer look at what you are saying. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: You are perfectly well aware that I am trying to edit. Don't have a go at me about "bad form, when you keep changing and reverting, and arguing. Get out of my hair, and let me finish the revisions. then come back and argue. What you are doing right now, is extraordinarily rude. Amandajm (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is wholly inappropriate. As an editor, I have every right to revert edits I think are bad. If you can't handle people disagreeing with your edits, you really need to reconsider editing articles that other people are active at. I was not "perfectly well aware" of what you were doing. You put up the inuse template, then produced one edit at the article and edited here on the talk page. If you use that template, it is rude to do when you know other people are editing it (as was clear from my time stamps), and it is wrong to let yourself get distracted by other things. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good edit Rrius! Having finally got the point, you have reworded the "heir presumptive" bit well. I can handle the insult that came with the edit, in appreciation of the improvement. Amandajm (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The insult was tit for tat. Anyway, On second viewing, I think all you really needed to do to make the point you were trying to make was to add the word "later" between the two instances of "had". Since you're happy with the new version, though, I'll leave it be. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Coronation pic

Accidentally deleted in cut and paste. Never mind. It would have been speedily restored. Took time out for tea. Amandajm (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Stating facts

There is a tendency in the writing of this article to enhance all the things that we cannot really know:

• She looked tearful
• She fell in love

We cannot really know what was going on in her mind. What we do know is that her parents left the children when they went on tour. What we do know is that she wrote letters to Prince Philip during the war.

It's what she said. It also makes a distinction between their love match and an arranged marriage. DrKiernan (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is also a tendency to labour the sensational and trivial, and play down the facts

• The Introduction did not state the date of her accession, possibly the most important single date in the entire article.

It's in the infobox. DrKiernan (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Her coronation keeps getting turned into a tag to the television screening. In an article on TV broadcasting, YYes, the coronation would be mentioned as the subject matter of a significant broadcast, but here, a ridiculous imbalance existed, where the taking out of TV licenses appeared to be more important in the reign of Elizabeth II than her coronation service.

DrKiernan, kindly stop reverting edits that are intended to rescue the most important FACTS of Elizabeth II's reign, which have been into mere clauses.

Amandajm, please stop inserting badly written sections in the article that are full of typos, grammatical mistakes and are against long standing consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Then there is the Philip problem

• The FACT that he was (prior to his marriage) a British subject who had served in the navy through the war is turned into a bracketed section, in the sentence about Nazi relations and foreign birth.

While the reasons for controversy need to be described, turning a man's military service into an aside is hardly encyclopaedic!

It is the controversy that is important not his background. The paragraph is deliberately written in this way. DrKiernan (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as the reversions continue, I am forced to bring the stupidity that prevails in this article to the talk page!

Reverting

We appear to have had a consensus of opinion that the article, in the form it was in, was lacking, and unbalanced. I have maintained a record of the "unbalanced" nature of the article in my notes aove.

DrKiernan, you suggest that such changes "need discussing". I can see no reason whatsoever to discuss turning the major events of the Queen's life, her accession (and its date) and her coronation (and its date) into statements of fact rather than clauses referencing to other matters. The main reason is that I have attempted to "discuss" such matters with you, and got nowhere. Discussing has become pointless.

You keep reverting these changes without giving any explanation for why they should not be stated as facts. Your past reasons have included statements like "every monarch has a coronation so it doesn't need mentioning" and "the coronation is included in the Introduction" (but only as a lead in to the matter of it being televised).

Please take a less possessive and more realistic, encyclopaedic approach. Read the comments made by other contributors who also felt there was an imbalance.

As for doing a whole reversal, because you found a spelling error, and some (grammatically correct) expression that you thought could be improved on, that is just inappropriate. You are as capable of fixing the spelling of "Twonsend" as anybody else who might read as far as the footnotes.

With regards to the order of the statements about the Queen and Prince Philip in the section about their marriage, the details of theme being ousins sits awkwardly, whereeve oit is put. Putting it between two sentences that are about their meetings doesn't go well. The cousins matter is both background and ongoing. It therefore goes best in a sentence that states who Philip is. i.e. Duke of Edinburgh, was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. The story of their meeting follows.

Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Among the "facts" that the reversions have removed from the intro is the date of the coronation. The reversion also relates the date of the accession to the long string of realms, rather than to the fact that she acceded the throne on a particular day. These two facts, the most significant of her entire reign, need to be statements, not clauses.

I am going to keep saying this, and you, DrKeirnan, had better come up with a very good reason for not making them into statements, before reverting them again.

What game are you playing exactly, except a power game that insists that I have not "consulted" sufficiently, therefore the poor expression must remain, despite the comments by other contributors that the Introduction is unbalanced and poor?

The criticisms about "balance" etc, by other independent editors that were made, above, were partly in response to my commenting, at length, on this page.

Amandajm (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have explained, above, before, and in edit summaries. And I'm not the only one. DrKiernan (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, perhaps I am quite extraordinarily stupid for not being able to perceive why the facts of the Queen's reign need to be presented as facts.

Amandajm (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Such a comment simply makes no sense. The article is entirely factual. DrKiernan (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

DrKiernan, please don't misrepresent what I have written here.

• As I have attempted to explain to you before, it is a matter of how the facts are represented. Not simply whether the facts are "included" or whether the matters are indeed "factual".
• I have not suggested that the content of the article is not "factual".

(except in the occasional instance where the facts are obviously the opinion of an author and therefore can't be verified e.g. "She looked tearful".)

Pimlott is quoting eyewitness accounts. DrKiernan (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• The consistent problem with the article is that the important facts are not given the right weight. The important facts need to be made into "statements of fact", not clauses attached to something of a less important, trivial or passing matter.
• There is an additional and more serious problem in that I have had to fight you, and two other contributors, every step of the way, in order to get matters as significant a the War in Afghanistan and Visit to the Pope included in the introduction as being of significance in the life of the monarch and head of the Church of England.

That anyone should have had prolonged arguments (that started sometime last year) over the inclusion of these matters is, frankly, ridiculous!

Amandajm (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"had to fight you, and two other contributors" There, in a nutshell, is the problem. You should not be fighting against multiple editors. "I'm right, you three are wrong", is not consensus. You should not approach the article looking for a fight. You should not insist on imposing changes with which others disagree. As has already been pointed out, multiple times by multiple editors, you should not be rude, abrasive and combative. DrKiernan (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• DrKiernan, what you have written here only makes sense if:

You can conveniently ignore the fact that several independent editors: User:Andrew Davidson, Greenshed and Ondewelle all stated on this page that the the Introduction needed improving, while 76.102.1.193 wrote "barely interesting information that would be largely incomprehensible to a typical reader. Epic fail."

• What you have written here only makes sense if you, and the other reverters truly believe :

1. that the fact that the Queen is Head of the Church of England didn't need to be in the Intro.
2. that the Coronation was less important than the fact it was televised
3. that the war in the Falklands was less important than Andrew and Fergie's divorce
4. That the Queen's achievements didn't require stating at all
5. That the whole events of a year that was 20 years ago is still so "up there" that it has to be detailed the intro, to the exclusion of a favourite uncle's assassination and the deaths of mother and sister.
6. That Princess Diana really required three mentions in the introduction
7. That the Queen stayed in the palace while in mourning was more significant to her reign than the fact that she visited the Pope, after a breach of 500 years.
8. That the fact she is the world's most travelled head of state is not noteworthy enough for the introduction.
9. That a spat between two Corgis takes precedence over the Gulf War
10. That it is really significant that some viewers (in 1953) went to their neighbour's house to watch the tele.
11. That if a newspaper or chatty biographer tells us what the Queen thinks of her Prime Minister, then it can be quoted as encyclopaedic fact.

Those of these matters that I have raised here or have tried to edit have been repeatedly argued against and deleted. Some have finally been accepted, in the light of criticism from others, but it has been very very difficult (and exhausting) to get you to accept any of these changes.

Your favourite argument is that there is no consensus. Do the opinions of User:Andrew Davidson, Greenshed, Ondewelle, 76.102.1.193 and Amandajm count for nothing? That makes five people who think this article needs improvement.

However, all the others merely made their point, and went away, probably presuming that having given an opinion, it would be taken seriously, and acted upon. Unfortunately, they didn't count on the extraordinary difficulty that an editor might have in actually achieving improvement.

Amandajm (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, I think they've gone quiet because the introduction has been changed. DrKiernan (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• And you have succeeded in reverting or editing out as many of the changes as you possibly could, once they were satisfied.
• The sort of problems that were in the Intro extend to the entire text of the article. The comments focussed on the Intro, because, with any article, it is most vital to get it right.

Amandajm (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I do think the introduction looks much better and more representative of the important points now. Ondewelle (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Two points

DrKiernan, there is something that you just don't seem to be able to grasp.

• If you, and the other editors who are resisting change, didn't know without being told, that the Queen's role in the Church of England needed to be in the first paragraph
• If you editors were prepared to argue about whether the coronation was to be a statement of fact or an adjunct to the televising
• If you editors did not realise that the Queen's achievements were at least as important as the annus horribilis 20 years ago
• If you (one or more) were prepared to argue that visit to the Pope was not of great enough significance to be in the intro

then it is clearly apparent that you, Miesianiacal, and Rrius don't have a very good understanding of the topic or of what ought or ought not be included. THe omission from the lead of the Church of England matter makes this obvious!

And because you have not achieved a reasonable balance in the intro, despite being alerted repeatedly to the glaring inadequacies, then it stands to reason that you are not the right group of people to be controlling the body of the article.

In fact, the inadequacies of the lead, at the time that it was on the front page, indicate that any consensus of opinion formed by you and the other editors who have resisted change so dogmatically, is not worth having!

The fact is that three people told you politely that your "consensus" was very poor. One person shouted at you in frustration, and the fourth told you it was "largely incomprehensible. Epic fail!"

So, having been told it is an "epic fail", why are you still trying to control the lead, and why do you imagine you are the right person to control the body of the article?

DrKiernan, the other thing that you don't grasp is that most of your hard work is (and will be) retained in the edits that I make. This is not about destroying what you have done. It is about working on it.

• This is not about massive deletions.
• This is not about destroying your hard work.
• This is mainly about putting things together in a better order.
• This is about making the most important facts into statements, not clauses.
• This is about adding referenced information where there are gaps.
• This is about giving more weight to world and country affairs and events than to trivia.
• This is about creating a balance between achievements and problems
• This is about turning extraneous matter that interrupts passages about important matters, into footnotes.

DrKiernan, I think that you are perfectly well aware that what I am trying to achieve is balance and quality of expression. I am really sick of having my edits referred to as "disruptive, when they are plainly not disruptive.

And, yes, you have been perfectly right in pointing out that 1. I typed an important date wrongly, 2. I made a typo in the name of "Townsend", 3. My mode of expression in one sentence (though grammatically correct) was outmoded and could be improved. However, the fact that you are prepared to revert a whole lot of edits, rather than correct a typo shows a degree of "retentiveness" that my rather more generous nature finds hard to come to terms with. I expect that I will continue to make many minor typos and small errors that need a quick fix, and probably a few greater errors that need pointing out and changing. That is how it goes. I don't have any trouble with that, whatsoever; in fact, I appreciate people correcting my typos and spelling. (My word processor favours US spelling, which is frustrating, so I sit here with a Shorter Oxford beside me.)

Is it really impossible for you to be more cooperative?

Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one being uncooperative. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. At the moment, it just looks like a series of rants against specific editors (mostly me). Stop it. DrKiernan (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose that all concerned mean well. Our difficulties arise because this is a major article about a subject in the news and Wikipedia does not work well when there are "too many cooks". Regarding Amandajm's points, I agree that there is generally more work to be done on the article and its lead. The devil is in the details, though, and so I suggest that each detail be discussed separately unless there is some linkage. The detail which I am focussing upon is the identification of the subject as Queen. I shall discuss this further above. Andrew Davidson (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost every point that I have raised on this page, either recently, or during my previous attempt to sort out the issues, has been rejected, generally for reasons that showed little understanding of the subject of the article.

The issues that I raise in the list above are all issues that have been raised previously, and the reasons that have been given for not including certain facts, and not rewording certain statements (so they read as facts) have been so lacking in comprehension of the issues on one hand, and so determined to thwart change on the other, that the matter of "discussing each detail" is extraordinarily tedious.

It has all been tried before, Andrew Davidson. That is the problem! Amandajm (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead says EIIR is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The lead mentions her meetings with popes. The lead mentions achievements and important events. The televising of the coronation is now an adjunct to the primary mention of her coronation and the year in which it took place. Why, then, are you still ranting? Please specify what work you think the lead requires now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Every one of those improvements to the article was done at my instigation.

But the process of getting the improvements made was not a matter of discussion, co-operation and understanding.

Every suggestion that I made on this page was met with repeated argument against any change. and the raising of numerous reasons which showed a considerable lack of understanding of the subject.

The complaint here is that the people who argued against every one of those improvements, and in some cases repeatedly deleted them, are still attempting to control every other possible improvement. to the body of the article.

Miesianiacal, kindly refrain from trying to make it look as if I am the person who is being uncooperative in this matter. It is not the case, as you are aware. Amandajm (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to air your grievances about editors; there are specific places where breaches of Wikipedia rules and guidelines can be reported. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Philip Alexius de Laszlo-Princess Elizabeth of York, Currently Queen Elizabeth II of England,1933.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Queen

Queen Elizabeth is commonly referred to as "The Queen". For example, Google currently has a doodle which it calls "The Queen's Diamond Jubilee". I found that the lead hardly used the word Queen and instead had lots of jargon such as "constitutional monarch" and "queen regnant". A lead is supposed to write in simple, accessible language and use the common name for subjects. I have therefore updated the lead sentence to make it clear that we're talking about The Queen. Andrew Davidson (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

She may be commonly known as The Queen in the UK but I suspect that isn't the case around the world as there are a number of other monarchs with that title Do you think she will be known as The Queen in Denmark or Tonga for instance? Richerman (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) While I agree that "queen regnant" is unnecessarily obscure, I've removed at least one of the Queens from the lead. It shouldn't be over-played repetitively. DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have left it as "Queen Elizabeth II" and removed the "commonly known as The Queen" phrase as it's too specific to the UK Richerman (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I made my edit before I saw your comment. I've no strong opinion on which Queen to keep. DrKiernan (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done the switch. I agree with Richerman's comment that "commonly known as The Queen" is UK-specific. All UK queens, during their or their husband's reign, have been commonly known as "the Queen" - just as all UK kings have been commonly known as "the King" during their reigns. It's like saying that Barack Obama is commonly known as "the President" or that David Cameron is commonly known as "the Prime Minister". Kahastok talk 09:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Elizabeth II, not Queen Elizabeth II, none of her predecessors pages have the prefix 'King' or 'Queen' except Victoria, but that's because she's the only British Sovereign called Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.237.93 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well no. It seems an American affectation to over-use the number 2. The Queen would just be refered to as "The Queen" in the UK, or even in Australia, or as "Queen Elizabeth" if there was some contextual need to distinguish Queen Elizabeth from Queen Margrete or Queen Beatrix or Queen Latifa. Now if there was currently a Queen Elizabeth of Prussia or somewhere, then there might be some need for additional disambiguation, but there isn't. The numbering is not necessary to be used incessantly all of the time.Eregli bob (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too fussy how it's done but we're still needing something in the lead to say that she's Queen and known widely by this title and so I have made another attempt. There also ought to be some mention of her family name of Windsor in the lead - currently we have nothing. Andrew Davidson (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It clearly states in the infobox that she is Queen of the Commonwealth Realms, and from the House of Windsor, what more do you need? Mediatech492 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, she's more widely known as "the Queen" than any other queen, by very long way! She is often called "Queen Elizabeth"

Amandajm (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Someone reverted on the grounds that the article title didn't match the lead. That seems a petty distinction but I have tried another formulation to address it. This is similar to the wording of the kings of the 20th century, e.g. "George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George; 14 December 1895 – 6 February 1952) was King of the United Kingdom..." Andrew Davidson (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What you put in was grammatically incorrect; using the capitalised 'q' indicated Elizabeth II holds the title "Queen of 16 sovereign states"; she doesn't. The proper rendition would be "queen [note: lower case 'q'] of 16 sovereign states". But, that takes us right back to the whole "queen regnant" vs. "queen" issue (though, I'm not sure why it is one). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

We put titles and rank such as "Sir" or "Major" in the lede of most BLPs, so it is very odd that it is not "Queen Elizabeth II". It can even be argued that WP:COMMONNAME applies. Ng.j (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Id oppose putting commonly known as the Queen etc, but this article should start Queen Elizabeth II rather than Elizabeth II. Its a shame that the article is not at Queen Elizabeth II, considering Queen Victoria is there. BritishWatcher (talk)

Issue

Issue is usually shown in a table. I think we should stick with this, not for the sake of consistency (though that is a consideration), but because it is clearer and more succinct. Further, the new prose version of the section contains potentially contentious or erroneous material. The children of the Earl of Wessex should not be styled as royal highnesses, as the sources generally do not do so (if they ever do at all). The Phillips children are not princes or highnesses. Anne is not a prince. Charles is not styled Crown Prince. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The Queen is referred to as "Elizabeth" or "the Queen" seemingly arbitrarily in the article after her coronation is detailed. Sometimes she is referred to as both in the same sentence, eg: "In 1977, Elizabeth marked the Silver Jubilee of her accession. Parties and events took place throughout the Commonwealth, many coinciding with the Queen's associated national and Commonwealth tours." Other times it's in the same paragraph and is done when discussing similar events, eg: "Elizabeth addressed the United Nations for a second time in 2010... The Queen's visit to Australia in October 2011..." and "Elizabeth's popularity sank to a low point... though the Queen's popularity rebounded." Some of the uses of "Elizabeth" make sense and should be retained but others should be replaced by "the Queen" in the examples I have given and others. Although in the first example, it would be better to replace "the Queen's associated..." with "her associated...", rather than have the awkward switch between the two. If there are no objections, I will do this. Tiller54 (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I object. It's done deliberately for variety, to prevent the boredom that sets in when repeatedly reading the same two words. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Any serious objections? Tiller54 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am being serious. DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

lol Tiller54 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded by rudeness or ridicule. A bad attitude just makes a desired edit less likely. DrKiernan (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you made a sensible argument I would not laugh at you. Tiller54 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Boring. Moved on. DrKiernan (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What a strange person. Tiller54 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, replacing Elizabeth with The Queen makes sense in many places. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. It is particularly absurd and confusing to use "Elizabeth" and "the Queen" in the same sentence or linked sentences, when using "she" or "her" would be far clearer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made the changes Tiller54 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"There have been times of personal grief for her"? Is "grief" really appropriate?

The sentence in the lead says : "There have been times of personal grief for her which include the death of her father at 56, the assassination of Prince Philip's uncle Lord Mountbatten, the breakdown of her children's marriages in 1992 (a year deemed her annus horribilis), the death in 1997 of her daughter-in-law Diana, Princess of Wales and the deaths of her mother and sister in 2002." How can anyone know she actually felt "grief" at all of these events? I think such a feeling of strong emotion cannot simply be assumed, not just in the Queen's case but in anyone's. It is not writing from a neutral POV. Do people really "grieve" at the breakdown of a child's marriage? Is the death of every member of one's family automatically an occasion for grief? If an elderly relative, for instance, and I am not specifically speaking of the Queen here, has been ill for many years and in pain, is it not quite reasonable to feel "at last he/she is at peace?" I think this sentence should be re-worded to something like "There have been times when she has faced difficulties in her family (or personal) life, which include etc etc". If there is no objection here I will change it in a few days. Also "1992 (a year deemed) etc I am going to add the word "she" before "deemed" as she is the one who used that term.Smeat75 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just change "grief" to "sorrow".

In the speech she says "in the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents". DrKiernan (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. OK.Smeat75 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Photos from 1946 and 1953

I uploaded a photo of her taken in 1946 and others from 1953, and this, which might look good somewhere in the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not here, folks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does monarchy still exist??? Why does monarchy still exist in this modern age in developed countries such as the UK, other European countries, and Japan? Why are there still kings, queens, princes, princesses in this day? Is it predictable that they will disappear at the dawn of, say, the next century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.79.2.28 (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The "developed" world could just fall apart before the next century. Everything could just end-up reverting back to Kingdoms where the Monarch looks out for the welfare of the populous living inside their borders again. CaribDigita (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 7 of the top 10 countries for Human Development Index are monarchies (one of which - Liechtenstein - isn't even particularly democratically run); half of the top 10 of the accompanying IHDI list are monarchies; so are half of the top 10 of the ICT Development Index; likewise 7 of the top 10 by Quality-of-life Index and 6 of the top 10 by Satisfaction with Life Index. So I'm not sure where the presumption comes from that monarchies should be expected to disappear! Monarchy appears to be a highly successful mode of behaviour for technically and socially advanced societies. There are good arguments why it should disappear, obviously - but the implied contrast or conflict with 'developed countries' is demonstrably false. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC) This discussion should not be happening. Not here, anyway. It in no way improves the Wikipedia article called Elizabeth II. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation and Rhodesia

A few troubling edits by DrKiernan today:

• Since it is specifically the family of Queen Elizabeth II that's being referred to, and not the generic concept of a royal family, the term 'Royal Family' is a proper noun in the context and should be capitalised. That capitalisation has repeatedly been undone.

• Sourced material about criticism towards Elizabeth for a personal message she sent to Ian Smith following his UDI for Rhodesia is being deleted. A claim "no explanation of who criticised or why" was offered as a reason for this removal. Yet, at the same time, material was restored about a report being "most notable" somehow for the sole reason it was made in the The Sunday Times, with no explanation of who said it was "most notbale" or why a report is notable simply for being made in said newspaper (are all reports in the Times notable because they're in the Times?). Double standards are being applied, along with a disregard for WP:V.

• Mention that Rhodesia was decalred a republic was deleted without any reasoning offered. Absent this clarification, it appears now as though Smith's allegiance to Elizabeth after the UDI was endless when, in fact, it was not. Again, as matterial that both clarifies historical context and bears directly on the subject of this article, it should be included. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on the content rather than the contributor. Article talk page discussions should not be personalised:

• There is no rule for capitalisation of the term royal family, unless Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Institutions applies.
• The edits were explained in the edit summaries.[14][15]
• The details are in the linked daughter article, and this article is already long; "declared unilateral independence" would imply to most people a form of government independent of the British monarch. However, the main issue is one of prose rather than unnecessary addition. The clause "he eventually declared Rhodesia a republic" does not follow from "Although the Queen dismissed him in a formal declaration, and the international community applied sanctions against Rhodesia". Those two clauses apply to "his regime survived for over a decade" not the declaration of a republic. More trivially, it adds a third declaration after the declaration of independence and Elizabeth's formal declaration. DrKiernan (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You made the reverts, did you not?

• Proper English grammar is what we follow on English Wikipedia. Proper nouns - like the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, and the Royal Family, when those are referring to specific people or groups - are capitalised.
• The edit summaries do not explain the double standard. What paper reported it was never removed. Removed was the claim that it was "most notable" that The Times reported. That was done because there's no explanation in the article of who said it was "most notable" or why, exactly the same reasons you gave for removing mention both of the personal message Elizabeth sent to Smith and the criticism she received for it ("no explanation of who criticised or why").
• Mention of the declaration of independence imparts that the government of Rhodesia separated itself from the British monarch (the Queen in her British parliament, Cabinet, courts), but not from Elizabeth herself; the 1965 Rhodesian constitution made the country a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth as "Queen of Rhodesia": "The 1965 Constitution, introduced by the illegal regime, was of no legal force whatsoever. It attempted to endow Her Majesty with the position of 'Queen of Rhodesia' and to establish, as her representative, 'an Officer Administering the Government in and over Rhodesia.' It also purported to establish an oath of loyalty to the Queen as 'Queen of Rhodesia' and a similar judicial oath, which new judges would be required to take before sitting as judges."p.9 (more on the 1965 oath to the "Queen of Rhodesia": p.48; and reports of a December 1965 letter from Smith to Elizabeth II expressing that she is Rhodesia's head of state: Smith Writes Letter to the Queen) Without imparting in the paragraph in question in this article that Rhodesia became a republic in 1970, the reader is left not knowing when, if even ever, the Rhodesian government gave up Elizabeth as Rhodesia's queen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Then say "reverts" not "troubling edits".

• On capitalisation, there's no such rule in English grammar. Let me demonstrate with your own argument: Since it is specifically the family of Don Corleone that's being referred to, and not the generic concept of a crime family, the term 'Crime Family' is a proper noun in the context and should be capitalised. That's simply not the case. "The Windsor family" refers to a specific family and may be a proper noun but we don't write "Windsor Family".
• As I said in the edit summary, other papers reported it. Removing "most notably" made it appear as if the Sunday Times was the only one. I think comments, especially when critical, as in both the Thatcher and Rhodesia cases, should be directly attributed in the text.
• All this detail rightly belongs in the daughter article, and I don't need to be educated on the history of Rhodesia, or the constitutional or legal arguments, as I assure you I am well aware of them. I just don't see how it can all be included here without grossly skewing the article towards Rhodesia. I have already said that my issue with the very short clause that you introduced is more a matter of prose rather than content. Please suggest a succinct change to the article text that addresses your concerns and if it's fine for me I'll say so and if it isn't I'll point out any problems I have with it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your comparison doesn't compute. There's no proper name (perhaps a more clear term in this context) for Don Corleone's family. There is for a monarch's family: the Royal Family. The British monarchy website capitalises the term: [16], [17]. The Canadian Forces capitalise the term: [18], and the Government of Canada: [19], [20]. Even Wikipedia capitalises it: British Royal Family, Danish Royal Family, Swedish Royal Family, etc. (and I don't just mean in the article titles). One would write 'the Windsor family', 'the King's family', 'the family of Queen Beatrix', but would capitalise the proper noun 'the Royal Family of Thailand', 'the Japanese Royal Family', or, where the national context is already known, simply 'the Royal Family'.
• That doesn't address the double standard, either. If the criticism should be attributed, then so too should claims of notability. I can see how my edit made it appear as though only one paper published the report, but that's easily rectified without reinserting the "most notably" stuff.
• Well, right now I don't think the article is clear at all on Elizabeth's relationship with Rhodesia post-declaration of independence; affirmations of loyalty to her don't necessarily mean keeping her as sovereign. If we dispense with the bit about criticism towards the Queen for making a personal appeal to Smith, then it should still be made more clear that the Rhodesian government kept Elizabeth as queen, without her consent, until the country changed to a republic. However, I don't know what's going to be said the next time someone chimes in here with complaints about how this article is too biased in favour of its subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are plenty of sources using lower case. This article uses lower case. DrKiernan (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Since my my appeal for some outside input garnered nothing, I've asked for a third opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on name format of Royal Family):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Elizabeth II and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I shall review the entire conversations above before adding a third opinion, which will be added in due course.Wesley Mouse 17:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

​

DrKiernan has mentioned Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Institutions and states that would apply in this case, and as much as other editors are in disagreement, I can also see what he is trying to imply. However that guidance is actually in connection to use as institutions such as universities, colleges, hospitals, and high schools. The topic at hand here is a family not an institution; the correct guidance to be referring to would be WP:JOBTITLES which is covering noble titles better. I can also understand the other side of this debate and see what Miesianiacal is also trying to express across to other editors. Also it should be worth pointing out that even though you may personally feel an edit may be troublesome; we are to assume the edit(s) have been done in good faith, and need to avoid referring to them as "troubling edits".

I can see that the confusion lies with what constitutes as a proper noun. A proper noun is a noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. But when there are articles such as British Royal Family which have capitalised Royal Family, and another article Royal and noble styles which doesn't capitalised royal family; then I can see how the confusion can occur. Wiktionary:Royal may provide some help on when the word royal should and shouldn't be capitalised, and this may help clear up the confusion surrounding here. However, I have detailed below a more extensive analysis into the proper noun use of the term 'Royal Family'

In the pages of the Daily Mail, such sentences (bullet-pointed below) have appeared:

• “… Chelsea is missing her Prince”
• “ … the duties carried out by The Prince and The Duchess …”
• “ The Princes have today carried out an engagement …..”
• “Kate Middleton is set to become Royal”

The use of the capital letter in those appear to be in overdrive. At first glance all the sentences above may seem in order, but in fact all of the above usages of capital letters pertaining to royal titles are incorrect.

That is not to say capital letters are not used in royal titles. It is perfectly acceptable to write “the Queen” or “the Prince of Wales”. But these are proper nouns, unlike the four examples cited earlier which are common nouns, except the last. “Chelsea is missing her prince” is the correct form for the first example. She is missing her prince, just as you would miss your grandfather or your cat. You do not miss your Prince or your Grandfather or your Cat. If the phrase was “Chelsea is missing Prince Harry” then it would be perfectly well capitalised, because it is referring to his title in full.

Similarly, there are the “duties carried out by the prince and the duchess”. This one is slightly more ambiguous – after all it is correct to write “the Queen” and “the Prime Minister”. But offices, positions and job titles require capitals only when they are followed by a person’s name, or if it is a formal name of an office. For example, “the Queen” and “the Prime Minister” are taken as formal names of office. Those are the titles by which they are known in this realm. “The Prince of Wales” is a formal name of office, but “The Prince” is not. For which prince are we talking about? That much is not made clear by the words “The Prince” and thus those words in themselves cannot claim to represent a title (and as the capitalisation of the “T” in “the” is in any case wholly incorrect). The same goes for “The Princes have today carried out an engagement …”. “The Princes” is not a title of state and thus cannot be capitalised (although interestingly, even in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, the titles “the king” and “the queen” are not capitalised).

The last example is the most absurd: “Kate Middleton is set to become Royal”. The word “royal” is an adjective and is almost never capitalised, save for when it is part of a title of an organisation or say, a book, or film. It is entirely correct to say “the Royal Family”, just as it is correct to refer to “the British Medical Association”. Both are formal names for a specific organisation. But to say Kate Middleton is set to be Royal is akin to stating that I am Angry, you are Not Royal or that she is still a Unmarried. An adjective, unless part of a title (as with most words), is not capitalised.

Perhaps this zealous use of the capital letter is due to careless grammar, but I sincerely doubt it. The authors of the writings in which these mistakes appear are curiously stringent when it comes to common and proper nouns of a non-royal nature. It is undoubtedly an attempt by the probable 'pro-monarchist' authors to exalt the members of the Royal Family even further. “The Prince looked at his subjects” appears much grander than “The prince looked at his subjects”, and it is to this end that grammar, as with so many things logical, in the world of monarchy is swept away in favour of something that dazzles. It is only a matter of time before these grammatical mistakes and corruptions of the English language become the norm, and monarchist grammar police enforce their use as a matter of course.

I hope that I have been able to help further with this third opinion, and clear up any grey areas. I shall keep this talk page on my watchlist for a few days until we know that everything has settled down. Regards, Wesley Mouse 18:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that lengthy contribution. What I take from it is that capitalisation is often used incorrectly, but, in this case, the proper name 'Royal Family' should be capitalised; specifically, you say "It is entirely correct to say 'the Royal Family', just as it is correct to refer to 'the British Medical Association'. Both are formal names for a specific organisation."

I'd like to see if DrKiernan has any further comment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:JOBTITLES that says royal family should be capitalised, and I don't read the third opinion as favoring capitalisation. Style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style and that of The Guardian[21] specifically say not to capitalise. I think there may be some truth to Wesley's final comment that the more deferential a source the more likely it is to use capitals, whereas academic sources, left-wing sources, republican sources and American sources are more likely to use lower case. DrKiernan (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Clarified. DrKiernan (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@DrKiernan, I never stated that WP:JOBTITLES states explicitly on capitalising of the term Royal Family, just that the guidance is the correct one in terms on noble names. You're correct in saying academic, left-wing, American sources tend to use lower case; and this would be correct for those respective sectors. But as this is an article relating to a British Monarch, then the correct procedure in terms of Wikipedia would be to use what the British and Monarchy majority stylise, which would be capitalized of the Royal Family.

@Miesianiacal, capitalising would all depend on the context in which you are using the words. Just like the examples I gave above, you wouldn't write 'The Prince', just as much as you wouldn't write 'The Grandfather' or 'The Cat'. Purely for the fact of who is the prince that you would be referring to? If the context was naming an actual prince such as the Prince William, then to capitalise Prince would be correct. So in answer to the query at hand here, the correct style would be 'the Royal Family' as you are speaking of a collective group of noble people. There are differences between British and American grammar and punctuation, and this often plays a part in the confusion too. What we should be considering is that this is an article relating to a British person, so should be using entirely British English grammar and punctuation - including the correct style of capitalizing. Wesley Mouse 09:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is British. There is no "British" style. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer that when it has been rephrased to sound a little less patronising. Wesley Mouse 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing patronising in what I've written. DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It came across as such, but anyhow I decided to answer anyway then the edit conflict occurred. It might be worth noting too that there is actually a naming convention for royal and noble titles, right here on Wikipedia - even I didn't know that it existed (WP:NCROY). In that it talks a lot of "Royal House" which is similar as to say "Royal Family", the naming convention seems to go in favour of capitalising of the words, as does Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Royal surnames. And the link to The Guardian is quite interesting too, in that they have capitalised every other non-biographical groups that uses the word royal, such as "Royal Mail" and "Royal Botanic Gardens", yet when it comes to a group of people they refer as 'royal family' and don't capitalise. One could assume the newspaper have made an error that hasn't been noted. Only way would be to contact the paper themselves. But with all the sources and guidances that are in favour of capitalised context, then who are we to deviate from such styles. But seeing as I have provided the lengthy report above based on my studies which I became qualified with a Master of Arts in English; then I think there is some weight into what I have provided. Wesley Mouse 09:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

They capitalise names of institutions or organisations. The family, commissions and parks are in lower case. Most style guides say not to capitalise. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the style guides that you have listed are American, and we are dealing with a British Monarchy here not an American one. Wikipedia is American yes, but even they have rules on articles relating to British subjects. And as such naming conventions state that British English and British grammatical guidelines should be followed. I have provided a few links to naming policies for royal subjects, and they do seem to be in favour of the capitalised 'Royal Family'. And like I also said, I do have an MA in English; and even we were told Royal Family is the correct format depending on the context it is being used. And based on the original argument above, the context sways towards Royal Family, and not royal family as you seem to be suggesting. Wesley Mouse 09:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Then scratch "Most style guides" and replace it with: All the style guides that mention it, regardless of nation, choose not to capitalise. (Although, it is clear that many publishers have chosen to capitalise.) Whether to use royal family or Royal Family is not a matter of differences between national variants. It is merely a style choice. There's nothing in Fowler's Usage or similar works of English grammar that says otherwise, as far as I know.

Until I wrote it into the guideline last September [22] (see also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 5#Titles of people) we weren't even supposed to capitalise "the Queen". DrKiernan (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, and even in that discussion back then another editor replied back to you that "the Queen" or "the President" are still proper nouns as they are referring to an official name of office. This I also pointed out above in the lengthy WP:3O; which I shall repeat "Similarly, there are the “duties carried out by the prince and the duchess”. This one is slightly more ambiguous – after all it is correct to write “the Queen” and “the Prime Minister”. But offices, positions and job titles require capitals only when they are followed by a person’s name, or if it is a formal name of an office. For example, “the Queen” and “the Prime Minister” are taken as formal names of office. Those are the titles by which they are known in this realm. “The Prince of Wales” is a formal name of office, but “The Prince” is not. For which prince are we talking about?" Notice that there is reference to formal "common" names to which a person is generalised in their official realms. For the sake of this article, to use Royal Family would be more correct then to use royal family. This is because the context for which is being referred to is the Royal Family of Her Majesty the Queen. If you were to just be talking about any royal family in general then you wouldn't capitalise it, as there is nothing to stipulate which royal family you are speaking of. Wesley Mouse 12:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've made clear already, I don't accept this hearsay. "Royal Family" isn't an official name of office. The written authorities do not support your contention. If I'm writing about my own family, I don't write The Family to distinguish it from other peoples' families. It is not more or less correct to use capitals. DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A third opinion was requested, and I have acted upon that request and provided an in-depth analysis on how the term royal family should be written based on the context used. I have also informed you of my M.A. degree in English. I have also noted that neither version is correct or incorrect, but depends solely on the context it is being referenced to. This article is about Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. So if you are going to be referencing her family then it would really be capitalised as the Royal Family. If the article was to reference other royal families, then you wouldn't capitalise the term. The Royal Family of which is the Royal House of the Queen, would mean capitalising of the term. Sorry to say, but it isn't hearsay, and if you cannot accept it then perhaps you need to find some common ground or just agree to disagree. But all the "stylising" sources that you have quoted (with exception to one) are all American styling. This article is British, and should use the politically correct British stylising in regards to the British Monarchy. Wesley Mouse 12:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my brief disappearance; I was out of town for the last few days.

Wesley: Yes, of course the capitalisation of the term 'royal family' depends on context; as I said earlier, it is capitalised when referring to a specific royal family - "Thailand's Royal Family was present at today's celebrations for the King." - and not capitalised when one is referring to the concept of a royal family generically - "In most monarchies, the sovereign is supported in in his or her duties by the royal family." The Guardian style guide isn't at all helpful; it simply shows two words: "royal family", which begs a lot of questions about context.

DrKiernan, you appear to be accepting of capitalisation in the titles of and throughout articles on specific royal families - Swedish Royal Family, Canadian Royal Family, Danish Royal Family, Spanish Royal Family; such indicating that the families are indeed institutions with proper names. Yet, you at the same time insist that when the Commonwealth realms Royal Family is mentioned in this article, it should not be capitalised, saying "This article uses lower case". The inconsistency is incomprehnsible. Is this article special in some way? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Going off all the evidence so far, as well as the establishment of when the context of the phrase "royal family" is being used to determine when and when not it should be capitalised. I think we're safe to say it looks like this issue may be resolved. Capitalise the the term if you are referring to a specific Royal Family, and use lower case if the term is more generalised. Wesley Mouse 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule in English grammar or on wikipedia for capitalising the term "royal family" when used as a proper noun or otherwise. There is no consensus on wikipedia or in the world generally to standardise to American spelling or British English or to capitalise "royal family" or not. Consequently, on wikipedia both forms are acceptable. This article uses lower case. The other articles use capitals not because they are proper nouns but because the editors of those articles personally chose to use capitals. DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh? "There is no consensus on wikipedia or in the world generally to standardise to American spelling or British English". This talk page alone has a banner at the very top which reads "This article is written in British English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from American English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." Even I know there are guidelines in regards to English on here. If the article is connected to British/European regions, then British English and British grammatical styles are to be used. Same goes for Australian articles, they are to be written in Australian English. As this article is not American, then American English or American grammatical styles should not be used. Sorry to Say, but unless you can provide citations that state differently, then I suggest you both agree to disagree and use primarily British stylisation. Wesley Mouse 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article uses British spelling. Other articles do not. Other places/countries/people do not. Hence, there is no consensus worldwide for everyone to use British spelling. The choice between capitals or lower case is not related to American or British style as both capitals and lower case are used in both countries. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Check MOS:TIES please. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. By that it would also include the grammatical style which is more commonly used in that particular English-speaking nation too. There have been plenty of details to show when the term should and shouldn't be capitalised. If Dr Kiernan has recognised the capitalisation of Royal Family in articles listed above, then why should this one be any different? If content in the article that uses the words royal family is in the context of the Queen's Royal Family, then yes capitalise the words. If in this article you are speaking of a royal family in general other than that of the Queen, then don't capitalise it. Wesley Mouse 14:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This article uses British English and lower case. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. I see no evidence as yet that there is broad consensus to change the style of this article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll find the naming convention guidelines are the broad consensus. After all it is the Wikipedia community that finalise the naming convention policies. On a different note, it would be worth pointing out that the term Royal Family is also capitalised on other articles relating to the British Monarchy. So if all those articles have the words capitalised, and this one hasn't - then it makes this article the minority going off a broader style used on other articles (such as British Royal Family, In other Commonwealth realms, and Royal Family's role in the realms). Wesley Mouse 14:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change the other articles to lower case. DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and even the official website of the British Monarchy constantly capitalise the word 'Royal Family'. So are you now saying that even the Royal Family themselves have styled it all incorrectly? Wesley Mouse 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I've never said that actually. I've constantly said that either style is correct and that there is no rule; it is merely a personal choice of style. I've said that over and over, but apparently my words have not been heard. DrKiernan (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reply there is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek isn't it DrKiernan!? Please read this citations carefully - The Royal Family name and Greeting a member of The Royal Family. Notice that the words Royal Family are constantly capitalised. I can understand your frustration here as you want to have the words de-capitalised. But if there are a lot of reliable and official sources that all use capitalisation, as well as other articles on Wikipedia all relating to the same subject. Then it is very clear that a president of how the words are styled has been long established on Wikipedia. If you wish to deviate away from that, then you are a brave soul indeed. But facts are facts, citations are citations, they all show Royal Family as capitalised. And please stop moving my comments into new locations on this thread - such actions are classified as refactoring, and I don't appreciate my comments being repositioned. Wesley Mouse 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not moved your comments. Do not move mine. I have provided sources that show lower case is used, and even preferred by many. DrKiernan (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have moved one of my comments. They are date stamped for a reason. The post of mine which starts "Oh, and even the official website of the..." was posted directly under my previous post as an expansion. You have now moved it so it is sandwiched in-between two of your posts. And you have since moved it again. Refrain from such actions please. Wesley Mouse 15:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It was probably the edit conflicts that caused it. Whenever one occurs, check to make sure you're not pushing another's comment out of position before re-saving. Wesley Mouse 15:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My reply of 14:56 [23] was in response to your comment of 14:51 not to your comment of 14:54, which I had not read when I wrote that response. I therefore placed it in thread with that comment. I deleted my accidentally duplicated comment [24]. I did not move any of your comments. You then moved my comment at 15:03[25]. Please do not move it again. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't moved your comments, I moved my own back to its original chronological position. You may have thought it polite to separate your replies according to the comment you were replying too. But I dislike my comments being placed out of chronological order. Please reposition my post back to its original chronological order thank you. And this debate is clearly getting to the point of either you don't like what others have pointed out, or a failure/refusal to "get the point". I think the time has come where everyone needs to drop it and go off what the official sources are using, regardless of whether your personal opinion is in disagreement. A third opinion has been given (by an editor who has been around for 13 months) which one editor (who has been around for 8 years) understands and agrees with the analysis. Now please, let it go and get back to productive editing. Wesley Mouse 15:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to escalate this one further from a 3O to an RfC, by inviting comments from other members of the projects listed above. That may help provide a consensus for DrKiernan. Wesley Mouse 15:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: An invitation for members of Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty and Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility to contribute to this discussion has been issued on 5 September 2012. Wesley Mouse 15:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Posting bias canvass statements and a personal attack across multiple pages is unlikely to impress me. DrKiernan (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no bias, canvassing, or attacking statements made anywhere. I have however, briefly summarised this situation on the other project pages to highlight the situation. Nothing incorrect in that procedure I'm afraid. Wesley Mouse 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You should not be personalising the debate or characterising users in a request for comment invitation. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the wording in the RfC invite on those project talk pages. I haven't personalised the debate in any shape or form. I have summarised the debate that has occurred in here. As this debate is clearly a lengthy one, it makes more common-sense to provide a brief summary of what the issue is and what has been mainly pointed out - which I have done that in the written statement - that alone is not bias nor is it canvassing. If I were to have written in my statement to those projects that they must take a particular side, then that would be canvassing. As I haven't done such action then your accusation of canvassing is false and should be withdrawn. Also no comments have been made to characterise a user in my statement. If you read it carefully, I said "one user seems to be failing to get it - while it does look like it is characterising, I must point out that it isn't. My meaning in that comment is a user, which could be either of us three may be failing to get a particular point. So again, it would be appreciated if you retracted that allegation also. Cheers, Wesley Mouse 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems Wesley's requests for additional opinion have been fruitless. The third opinion offered has favoured capitalising "royal family" in the appropriate contexts in this article. However, as DrKiernan still resists, it seems the next step in the dispute resolution process will have to be taken. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive me for butting into this discussion. I just wanted to note that the Oxford English Dictionary states: "royal family n. the group of people closely related by birth or marriage to a monarch, spec. (freq. with capital initials) the family of the British monarch; also in extended use." Lee McLernon 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbombbardier (talk • contribs)

Not to express a specific opinion, but to offer my personal experience as a writer of books about the British monarchy - my publishers have never allowed me to use capitals for terms like "king" even when talking about individuals. I had to fight them just to let me write "Diana, Princess of Wales" instead of "Diana, princess of Wales"! Deb (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)