Talk:Time Person of the Year/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Request for Comment re: Elizabeth II

This one is a bit hard to summarize, because it goes to much larger issues than just this page. But basically, Elizabeth II is best known as Queen of the United Kingdom, but she is also separately queen of a variety of other former British possessions (in 1952, when the Time award was won, these were Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Ceylon). The question is whether, in articles in which these constitutional issues are not germane, it is acceptable to refer to Elizabeth II as British (in this case by putting a British flag beside her name), or whether it is necessary instead to not describe her nationality and instead include a footnote describing the constitutional issue. john k (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the question. She has a nationality, and should be treated in that regard just like anyone else. --FormerIP (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

She has nationalities. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Leave it as is: Employing no flag next to Elizabeth II is preferable for a number of reasons:
  • Elizabeth II was sovereign - and personification - of more than one independent state in 1952; these countries have been considered equal to one another since 1927. It would be against WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to go overturn that established equality and selectively elevate one state above the others based only on the perception that Elizabeth II is "best known" as Queen of the United Kingdom. (The intent of this encyclopaedia is to educate, not reinforce misconceptions, however popular.)
  • Citizenship is not a factor as there is no evidence that Elizabeth II holds citizenship of any kind; according to the concept of sovereign immunity, the monarch is not bound by legislation that does not specifically say it binds the Crown ("Legislation does not presently bind the Crown unless there is express provision to say that it does."[1] "The general principle in law that statutes do not bind the Crown unless by express provision..."[2]) and none of the citizenship laws in Elizabeth's realms have such a clause.
  • WP:MOSFLAG tells us: "do not use flags when the issue is complex or it is unnecessary to do so." More specifically: "Avoid flag usage, especially to present a point of view that is likely to raise editorial controversy over political or other factual matters about a biography subject." "[A] flag may have limited and highly specific official uses, and an application outside that context can have political (e.g. nationalist or anti-nationalist) implications." "Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's 'Neutral point of view' policy..."
  • The current arrangement does not include any constitutional detail, contrary to what John K says.

Different circumstances may require different treatments, so my comments above apply only to this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• My position is that we should use the UK flag in this article. It is not only a "perception" that Elizabeth II is "best known" as queen of the UK. She is queen of the United Kingdom and its predecessor states by inheritance going back at least 300 years, and the successor there to monarchs going back far longer. Her status as monarch of the other countries is a constitutional curiosity resulting from the retreat of the British Empire, and it is not incorrect to state that she is the queen of Canada, Tuvalu, and Antigua and Barbuda as a result of her status as Queen of the United Kingdom. Her constitutional role in the United Kingdom is also far greater than her role in the other kingdoms. She exercises her powers directly in the United Kingdom, while in the other realms those powers are exercised virtually all the time by a governor-general in whose appointment she has no real say. She has lived her entire life in the United Kingdom; neither she herself nor any of her predecessors has ever lived in any of the other commonwealth realms. In short, for all practical purposes the "popular perception" is correct. It is not misleading in any way to put a British flag by her name in this article. The constitutional niceties of her status need not clog up every article that mentions Elizabeth II; they should be discussed in articles where it is actually appropriate to do so, like Commonwealth realm, Monarchy of Canada, and the like. I would add that in this particular instance, the case for using the Union Jack is even stronger, because it refers to a distinction awarded in 1952. The idea of the various commonwealth realms as distinct and equal realms with the United Kingdom is one which has developed gradually over time, and was still very incomplete in 1952. The use of separate titles for the individual realms was not instituted until after 1952, and, indeed, the term "commonwealth realms" really only came into existence with Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953. It is thus particularly anachronistic to insist on the matter in this particular case. john k (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your last claim isn't true: The position of the Canadian government in 1952 was that "the Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over other Commonwealth countries. Our view is in strict accord with the present constitutional position, which is based on the concept of equality of status of all Commonwealth members."[3] At around the same time, the British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Patrick Gordon Walker, said "We in this country have to abandon... any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole."[Bogdanor, Vernon (12 February 1998). The Monarchy and the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 288. ISBN 978-0198293347.] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The document you are quoting is discussing the Canadian government's position on the creation of new styles for the monarch. The Canadian government believed that the queen was Queen of Canada, but the title Queen of Canada did not yet exist. john k (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct; create new titles to reflect the reality that Elzabeth II was queen of all her realms separately and equally, contrary to your claim that in 1952 the equality and distinctness of the realms had not yet been established. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just an opinion but I would just get rid of all the flags in the article, if the reader doesnt know the nationality then they can click on the subject link rather than guessing what the flag is. We have an assumption that readers recognise all the flags of the world which is not always true. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be reasonable. I'd certainly prefer it to having a tangential footnote about commonwealth realms. john k (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The flags are indeed unnecessary and misleading. These people are not members of national sports teams.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Miesianiacal. Keep it the way it is. I also think we should keep the other flags - Highfields (talk, contribs) 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Other people have several flags - Albert Einstein has three, for example. Why not just put the seven relevant flags in? There is enough space. This article isn't about citizenship or nationality so it isn't important *exactly* how she is related to those countries; she obviously is in a significant way. Having the footnote looks odd and inconsistent. I think having the flags in general is useful too - e.g. even if you don't recognise the US flag you can see it is a common one and as such click on it to find out more. Now the important question - what order should the seven flags be in? Lessthanideal (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

16 flags would be a little weird though. The flags obviously denote nationality, and the nationality of the Queen is obviously British. I don't see any reason to suppose otherwise. The fact that she's head of state in Australia doesn't make her Australian, just as the Prince of Wales isn't Welsh, the Countess Mountbatten of Burma isn't Burmese and the Prince of Orange is only vaguely orange. These things are titles, not nationalities. --FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's precedence for no flag as well as for more than one flag; but, she wasn't queen of 16 countries in 1952. As queen of any country, she's certainly not foreign to it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? Depends on what you mean by "foreign." George I and George II are often called foreign and German, despite being Kings of Great Britain. The fact that George VI was viewed as foreign is one of the main reasons he ceased to be king of India and Ireland before his death, and the same reason helped end his daughter's reigns in Pakistan, South Africa, Ceylon, the Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Malawi, Mauritius, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Fiji. The perceived foreignness of the Habsburg kings led to the Portuguese revolt of 1640; Norway got its own kings in 1905 in part for similar reasons. These narrow legalistic readings you prefer should not trump common sense and the normal meanings of English words. john k (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, while I'm no expert on this, a look at History of Canadian nationality law gives no indication that Elizabeth II would have been considered either a Canadian citizen or a Canadian national. So far as I can tell, under the 1947 nationality law, there was no understanding of Canadian nationality separate from Canadian citizenship, and Canadian citizenship was only held by people who either lived in Canada or were children of someone who was from Canada. Elizabeth II fit neither of those criteria. Certainly she was not a Canadian national on 1 January 1952; until her father's death, she would pretty clearly have had British nationality and no other. Afterwards, as a sovereign, it's perhaps tricky. It seems to me, though, that the claim that she was obviously a Canadian national by virtue of being Queen of Canada (a title which, btw, did not exist until 1953) is essentially OR in the form of original synthesis, unless someone can present a reliable source which directly says that Elizabeth II is a national of any state of which she is head of state - all we seem to have now are a lot of inferences. john k (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's you who pulled out citizenship and nationality laws. Even before Elizabeth became queen, such laws didn't make her a definite foreigner to her father's non-British realms; the government of Canada and the Canadian Forces don't consider any members of the Royal Family to be alien; they are always spoken of in official publications without national qualifiers and quite apart from mention of royalty and heads of state explicitly defined as foreign.

After Elizabeth acceded to the thrones (which occurred according to the constitutions of the countries she became queen of, not by virtue of her titles), whatever citizenship and nationality laws that did apply to her before the event ceased to afterwards. Nor is there any indication that because she is queen she is automatically either a citizen or a national of any of her realms. I simply said that, despite whatever anti-royalists choose to say, Elizabeth isn't a foreigner to any of the countries of which she's queen, which seems pretty well established for the UK and Canada, at least. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Go with British as that is the Commonwealth realm she's most associated with & the only realm that doesn't have/need a Governor General, due to the Queen's being a resident of the UK. As for Queen of Canada? that style has the UK in it & before Canada. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now it's residency, titles, and the presence or absence of a governor general that dictates one's nationality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That dictates what flag should appear in this article. john k (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. - Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. john k (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with yours. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A disagreement with which I myself disagree. Shall we continue in this vein? john k (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• There needs to be a flag of some sort It just doesn't look right her being the only single person without a flag. If you're opposed to using the UK flag (which I'm not), why not use the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations? I think that would fairly represent her global position Purplebackpack89 22:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Commonwealth flag didn't exist in 1952. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers. Does everything British about Elizabeth II, have to be deleted or hidden everywheres on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Does everything not British? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not everything non-British is deleted/hidden. Nor am I seeking to hide everything concerning the 15 other realms from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And not everything British is hidden. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, thankfully for NPoV's sake. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an international article & Elizabeth II is recognized mostly a British, in the international community. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear what you mean by "mostly as British" and "international community", where you gleaned this information from, or what relevance it has to this page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly how Time magazine recognized her in 1952. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a clarification of your earlier statement and is of questionable source and relevance as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in trying to reason with you on this topic, anymore. No offense. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to explain what you mean, your rationale behind it, and what you've based it on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine named Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom, Woman of the Year in 1952. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I read your earlier mention of this. What I don't see is where you've found what TIME said in 1952 or what it matters to the facts and WP policies guiding how we form this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is internationally recognized foremost as British (both then & now). If you wanna treat me like an idiot, by asking me to provide sources for the obvious? then it's best I depart this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't ask you for a citation affirming that Elizabeth II is commonly perceived as British. You said TIME said something and I asked for the source for that. But that's actually irrelevant, anyway. The more important request for clarification I put to you separately was: how does popular perception dictate accuracy? Wikipedia's own policy is that it is not a democracy; i.e. facts aren't affirmed by popularity. The facts, both in 1952 and now, and as already explained by me in detail above, are that Elizabeth II is equally queen of all her countries and foreign to none (for certain the UK and Canada, at least), despite having no citizenship or nationality mandated by law in any, meaning it would be contrary to Wikipedia's own NPOV policy and WORLDVIEW guideline to elevate in this article one state above the others based on no more reasoning than that country is the one she's most commonly associated with by a public and media so unconcerned with factual and nuanced accuracy that they generally think she's Queen of England. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The original Time article is here. It refers to her once as head of the Commonwealth, and mentions Britain 19 times in the context of her rule over it. She is referred to as Queen of Great Britain, British Queen, and such, and the article is pretty much wholly about the importance of her accession to the United Kingdom. The other commonwealth realms are mentioned as a group once, mentioning that she might receive in audience a visiting Commonwealth governor-general. Of the individual commonwealth realms, Canada is mentioned once, in the context of Canadian debutantes finding the Duke of Edinburgh handsome. South Africa is mentioned once, in the context of people there talking about a republic. The other commonwealth realms (Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Ceylon) are not mentioned at all. It is pretty clear that Time viewed her first and foremost as queen of the UK. john k (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Except, TIME's POV doesn't trump that of the law, parliamentarians, and governments of the day. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any sources for the idea that any of these institutions did not view Elizabeth II as primarily British, especially in 1952. Certainly the idea that Elizabeth II was as much Ceylonese and Pakistani as British is difficult to credit. Moreover, this is an article about Time magazine. Surely Time's view is relevant? At any rate, I'll just reassert my basic point, which is that what you are asserting as objective truth is actually an agreed upon legal fiction. Elizabeth II is "Canadian" only in the sense that she is Canada's (entirely nominal) head of state. She is "British" in every sense that matters. To insist on the absolute equality of her Britishness and Canadianness in even the most informal contexts is to insist that this legal fiction entirely trumps every other meaning of nationality - and not only that you have yet to prove that Elizabeth II in 1952 was a Canadian (or Ceylonese, or South African) national even in the strictly legal sense. john k (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've proved already that Elizabeth wasn't (and isn't) considered a foreigner to Canada, as well as that the British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign recognised that the Queen "belonged" equally to all her countries. You've failed to show concrete evidence supporting the belief that she was in 1952 only a British national and was such for any reason besides being Britain's queen; the criteria you say "matters" is both wholly casual and exclusive in favour of your desired outcome. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The British nationality law in effect in 1952 made Elizabeth II a citizen of the UK by virtue of her birth there. At any rate, again, strict legal definitions should not be the only factor considered. In any non-legal setting, Elizabeth II, who was born in and had lived her entire life in the United Kingdom, and was the child of parents who had done the same, would be considered British. And it's absolutely undue weight to insist that a technical legal definition (for which you have not even proved your case) is the one that is important. john k (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The British nationality law had, and has, no bearing on the Queen; an Act of Parliament affects the sovereign only if it has a clause saying it does and the nationality law does not. There's no doubt Elizabeth is British; she is Queen of the United Kingdom. The problem is the unwillingness to recognise (as other did and do) that she is, as queen equally of more than just Britain, neither only nor primarily British. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add to the above the words of Elizabeth herself:

• "It's very good to be home." (Said upon arrival at Halifax in June 2010)
• "From the moment when I first set foot on Canadian soil the feeling of strangeness went, for I knew myself to be not only amongst friends, but amongst fellow countrymen." (At Ottawa, 1951)
• "...A warmth of heart that has made us feel how truly we belong to Canada." (1951)
• "I am going home to Canada tomorrow." (Said to an American reporter before departing California in 1983)

Her British photographer is also on record as saying: "[the Queen] feels Canadian as well as being Queen of Canada..." Philip has also said that, as consort to the Queen, he is Canadian.

I go on about Canada because it's what I know best and that's the information I have in front of me. It doesn't say much about other countries, but it does further demonstrate that Elizabeth's nationality is not a matter that can be bluntly squashed under two or three random criteria like primary place of residence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1948 nationality law certainly had bearing on HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and made her a citizen of the United Kingdom. Given that your own argument seems to be that since 1952 she is not technically a national or citizen of any country, I'd think her pre-accession nationality is relevant, in the same way that we'd say that James I's nationality was Scottish, or George I's was German. Beyond that, the big problem I have is that you continue to act as though "place of birth and almost exclusive place of residence" is "two or three random criteria". It is not; it is the normal way of determining nationality in a non-legal context. john k (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Her pre-accession citizenship is irrelevant because, firstly, it didn't necessarily mean she was only of British nationality; I've already pointed out that none in the Royal Family are considered foreigners to Canada, despite their lack of Canadian citizenship. Secondly, we're talking about Queen Elizabeth II, not Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh; upon accession, she ceased to be a British citizen and has since never been a citizen of any country. However, as was the case when she was princess, her lack of citizenship, place of birth, and place of primary residence have never caused her to be regarded as a foreigner in any of the countries of which she's queen (well, in the UK Canada, and perhaps Australia, anyway; I'm assuming the rest take the same stance). Only you've chosen the latter two criteria as the sole means by which nationality can be applied to the Queen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Liz would've said, "I'm a foreigner & I enjoy visiting this foreign country". Good public relations is a part of her station. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's essentially what she does when she visits foreign countries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't dare say it in Canada, Australia, New Zealand & the other 12 commonwealth realms, less she turn un-decideds into republicans. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly her statements about being Canadian should be viewed as political statements, not as simple indications of the Queen's personal views. Does the Queen also feel Papua New Guinean as well as being Queen of Papua New Guinea? The Queen's supposed Canadianness is a political stance designed to preserve the monarchy in Canada. I strongly suspect that in realms where the population isn't largely of European descent, this game is played a lot less, although I'd be interested to see how it plays out. john k (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip's, the Queen's photographer’s, and one of the Queen's comments quoted above were unofficial; otherwise, the Queen reviews and approves all her speeches. Thus, you're accusing these three people (as well as the government and the armed forces) of all acting in bad faith for the preservation of the Canadian Crown. I imagine you must be joking. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, a political figure might make insincere statements for political reasons? Who'd think it possible? At any rate, even if we posit that the queen is being completely sincere about feeling Canadian, can you find any similar statements about feeling Tuvaluan or feeling Jamaican? If not, then obviously the Queen's feeling of being Canadian is not some sort of inevitable result of her role as monarch, but rather a personal feeling engendered by a long association with Canada. She feels more strongly about Canada than about Tuvalu because she's spent a fair amount of time in Canada, and feels a personal connection to it. That may or may not really be the case (and I don't think that being polite to Canadians and saying nice things about her feelings about them constitutes "acting in bad faith," even if she is exaggerating her feeling of connection to the country), but it certainly doesn't support the argument that we cannot distinguish between the commonwealth realms. Such statements, in fact, show that there is a stronger connection between the monarch and Canada than there is between the monarch and the post-WWII commonewalth realms, about which we will almost certainly not find any such royal statements. Once we accept that, can't we also accept that there is a still closer connection between the monarch and the United Kingdom? john k (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I put the words here only to further illustrate how the Queen's nationality is a more complex matter than simply saying, oh, she's only British beacuse she was born and lives mostly in the UK. But, I do suppose none of us knows whether she, Philip, or her photographer were lying or not. Perhaps everyone's lying and Elizabeth is actually Norwegian. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

oh, she's only British beacuse she was born and lives mostly in the UK. I have never said that, and I do not believe that. I believe she is more British than any other nationality because she was born and lives almost entirely in the UK, and because she is the effective head of state of the UK, and only the nominal head of state of the other fifteen realms. In some technical legal sense, it is true that she belongs to all sixteen realms. In addition to those legal bonds, though, she has stronger connections to some realms than to others, and it seems quite clear that by far the strongest are to the United Kingdom. john k (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You've persistently (for years, now) shunted the non-British realms off as immature nations whose head of state is a "nominal" and unresolved "constitutional oddity". That old and misguided attitude shows just how strong you think Elizabeth's connections are to her non-British realms: essentially nil. For you, monarchs have grades of kingliness and nationality that rely solely on place of birth and geographical proximity. That, though, is merely a personal theory of yours that wasn't the position of officials in the 1950s and isn't the position of governments and armed forces today, nor of historians. From them, the theme has always been equality: "the Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over other Commonwealth countries. Our view is in strict accord with the present constitutional position, which is based on the concept of equality of status of all Commonwealth members"; "The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole"; "Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom... Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms;"[4] "[T]he other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms";[5] "The royal titles adopted in each of the fifteen realms, of which she was equally Queen, would require the assent of the Parliaments of each";[6] "Thus Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and Ceylon."[7] That is sourced, your opinion is not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But surely for the purposes of this article, the opinion of Time magazine is what matters. HM wasn't named Person of the Year because she was Queen of Canada, in fact Time probably weren't even aware she was Queen of Canada. The article makes quite clear that the reason she was Person of the Year was because she was Queen of the United Kingdom; the whole of the rest of the Commonwealth and Empire is only mentioned in passing. Opera hat (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Mies' argument is very convincing, but I'm starting to agree that maybe a simpler compromise should be sought - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

TIME didn't name her person of the year because she was queen of anywhere: "It was not the fact of her being Queen that made Elizabeth II the Woman of 1952." It also didn't give her the distinction because she's British. Even if we were to disregard both those facts and put a Union Flag next to her name in this list because the TIME article speaks more about her role in the UK than in any other country, we'd still require a footnote to explain why that flag was chosen, which is hardly better, if not worse, than what we've got now. Which brings me to ask Highfields: what possible compromise could there be that's simpler than what was earlier settled upon? I'm open to ideas, but draw a blank when I try to come up with any myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, this has nothing to do with personal theories of mine. You are expressing the official constitutional position, fine. Your claim that "historians" agree with you is complete nonsense - this issue is not the sort of thing that historians even write about, but whatever. My point throughout this is that the official constitutional position is a single POV, and not the dominant one. Because it is official, it deserves recognition in articles about the monarchy and the constitutional arrangements of the different commonwealth realms. But it mustn't swallow up every article that mentions Elizabeth II, because from virtually every other perspective (including, as Opera Hat and I have noted, that of Time magazine), her primary role is as queen of the United Kingdom. Even the Canadian government acknowledges the primacy of her role in the United Kingdom. The Department of Canadian Heritage says that her role in Canada is "a role independent of that as Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms." That is a phrase that you would not allow on Wikipedia because it unduly emphasizes the United Kingdom. Similarly, her official title in Canada is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, and her other realms and territories." Her titles in Australia and New Zealand were analogous in 1953, if our article is to be trusted. In Pakistan, "Queen of Pakistan" was not even used - she was just Queen of the United Kingdom there. Only South Africa and Ceylon did not mention the UK. Again, there are other considerations than pure constitutional ones, and virtually every reliable source takes that into account. If you look at other encyclopedias, they tend to simply refer to Elizabeth II as queen of the United Kingdom even in articles about her - Britannica does that, for instance. Even Canadian sources are perfectly fine with this - Here's Canada's leading national paper republishing an Associated Press video that refers to "Britain's Queen Elizabeth", a phrase that the Globe and Mail itself seems to use with some regularity in photo captions. Referring to the British monarchy, or to Elizabeth II as British, either because she is seen as mostly belonging to the UK, or because this is an easy simplification, is standard in all but official sources, and was even more common in 1952, when the present day titles like "Queen of Canada" and so forth had not even been created. To oppose this on the grounds you do is pure pedantry with no higher purpose. john k (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, john. The media knows best. Popularity dictates accuracy. Titles matter more than constitutions. We've heard your tired and hackneyed theories already. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is a reliable source. Informal usage is not necessarily incorrect just because it does not match formal usage. My argument is not that constitutions don't matter. It's that they're not the only thing that matters. Your argument is that making clear a formal constitutional situation that has few practical ramifications is more important than clearness and conciseness in articles that have nothing to do with that formal constitutional situation. This is ridiculous. john k (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A republication of an American video by The Globe and Mail does not trump law. It can be used to illustrate that Elizabeth is commonly perceived as British. But, informal usage is not necessarily correct. Accurate is the long established concept of equality amongst the Commonwealth realms - already demonstrated - and adhering to it is no more difficult than holding to a misconceived belief in the UK's superiority; we're talking about no flag with a footnote vs. a flag with a footnote. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I am talking about a flag with no footnote. There is no reason for the words "commonwealth realms" to appear anywhere in this article. And believing that a person who has spent their entire life in Britain, whose principal public activity is as queen of the UK, and who is, as you admit, "commonly perceived" as British, is, in fact, British has nothing to do with the "UK's superiority," nor does it imply that the commonwealth realms are not equal. john k (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One wonders why you conjure up red herrings to argue against - nobody said the Queen isn't British, or that the words "Commonwealth realm" must appear in every article. Also mystifying is your ability to argue that there are degrees of kingship and nationality and Elizabeth is more of a queen in the UK and more a national of Britain than anywhere else (following on your other comment about her place in the non-British realms being a mere "oddity") while, in the same breath, saying this isn't about the UK's superiority or the inequality of the realms.

You are, of course, free to hold whatever personal opinions you wish, for whatever reason. But, in order to write this encyclopædia, we must go by the sourced facts. Some of those are: Elizabeth was born in the UK, lives there mostly, and is popularly perceived by the masses as being only either a Brit or English. Ok, nobody's denied that. But, so what? While laws may use some of those criteria to settle what citizenship or nationality any regular individual holds, none of them define the Queen's nationality, let alone which one she's more of than any other: Nationality certainly isn't dictated for anyone by popular survey and sound sources tell us Elizabeth has been, since at least her accession, considered by legislators and governments - the people who actually make the rules - to be a part of all her realms, not a foreigner to any, and a part of all equally. This despite the Queen not being subject to her own citizenship and nationality laws, and without any regard for where she was born and spends most of her time. Placing a British flag next to Elizabeth's name in this list is thus an imposition of a POV, however popular, that doesn't reflect factual reality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not simply 'no flags for anybody?

See this material on flagcruft here and here. - Flags might look cute and pretty to some, but to others they are annoying and provoke timewasting debates like this one.

If it is of any help, according to research conducted by the [Australian Government|http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1995-96/96rn06.pdf], Queen Elizabeth I is not an Australian citizen Kransky (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already said that it would be fine with me to remove all flags. There was some resistance to this. john k (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

From whom? I'm willing to support this if it will help avoid future disputes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Highfield opposed it. We could do a poll, although I'd suggest approval or ranked preference between a) the status quo; b) all seven 1952 commonwealth realm flags; c) just the British flag; and d) removing all flags. john k (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, some feel polls are evil, but I don't see the harm in conducting one here and now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tough one, but what did she win the award for. THE SOURCE must cite somewhere that she won uit as Queen of England/Britain/Commonwealth, etc. Cite that.(Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

I linked to the article above. It refers to her almost exclusive as Queen of the UK, only mentioning the rest of the Commonwealth a few times in passing. john k (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just encountered this discussion and can't believe this has gone on for so long. Elizabeth II may have been/was of several nationalities in 1952, including British. Time award their "person of the year". How did Time view the recipient? As British. What flag should be next to her name? The British one. Opera hat (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I opposed removing all flags was because I think they give, most of the time, an easy and accurate guide as to the person's nationality. I think removing that guide would be a regressive step. Although clearly, it's far from perfect. In terms of compromise, I don't mind keeping it the same, or even going for options b or c in John K's poll, but I think the flags should stay - Highfields (talk, contribs) 14:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Put the Union Jack in. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Highfield, why is nationality so important? Why don't we include their university qualifications or shoe size? The whole point of these awards are to distinguish what people did, not who they were. And part of a good article is knowing what information to exclude, just as much as knowing what to include. Kransky (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, except your talking about the 'award'. The fact is, this list is designed to distinguish who the recipients were/are, and one of the, if not the, most important factors after their name is their nationality. I just think it gives a good guide. I'm perfectly willing to back down, or go for simpler things, like just primary nationality or a more relevant other nationality, even though I disagree, if we agree that's what's best. But my personal opinion is that nationality is important and the easiest, simplest and least intrusive method of conveying that is through flags. If you disagree, feel free... - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 16:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think that, given that most Time persons of the year are political figures, nationality is generally fairly important to mention. Of course, some of the recipients aren't political figures, in which case nationality is less important - e.g. Zuckerberg, "the Good Samaritans", Bezos, Grove, Ho, Turner, Curtice, Chrysler. john k (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. Then it would seem we agree on something then. Which is a good start for compromising on the other matter. As I say, I would be willing to concede on Elizabeth, or even people like Gandhi, if we can agree on the terms... - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of flags, we could have brief text explanations of who each winner is. Of course, that wouldn't remove the problem, as Miesianiacal will continue to insist on unnecessary references to commonwealth realms and their absolute equality in the Elizabeth II entry, which is the basic problem here. john k (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny how you see resistance to your outdated, unsubstantiated POV as a problem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody considered using Liz's Royal Standard? GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was suggested by Highfields before. But, as he noted at the time, the existence of a separate standard for Scotland presents a problem. I'd also add to that the issue of the standard being a personal flag and not a national one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume that reaching a consensus for deleting all flags, will be a very difficult feat. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Would anybody object to using the Queen's personal flag? The one with the big E in the middle? GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be useful to most readers, who would not know what it is. There is no reason for the article to draw attention to Elizabeth II at all in this context. She won as queen of the United Kingdom and she is British. We should have the Union Jack for her or no flags for any of the winners. john k (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no probs with eliminating all flags. As for adding the British flag, Mies will never agree to it & right now, there's basically just a tiny handful of editors interested in this topic. Kinda like in Canada, not enough people care about or are aware about the monarchy, to be monarchists or republicans. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 She won as queen of the United Kingdom From the TIME article, once again: "It was not the fact of her being Queen that made Elizabeth II the Woman of 1952." She is not just British; ergo, the British flag is inappropriate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If being a monarch wasn't the reason, then what was? GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we gonna end this foolishness & add the Union Jack, now? It's not good to argue about such things with what can be seen as a SPA. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I cannot belive that half this page and hours of peoples time have been wasted because some people think the Queen of the United Kingdom should not have the United Kingdom flag next to her. I've been involved in some heated discussions over the years but this is crazy. -- Chuq (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you read the right half of the page. The question is more: why should the Queen of Australia (or of Canada, or Jamaica, or New Zealand) have the United Kingdom flag next to her? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does that matter? The flag represents the nation of which the person is a citizen/resident. For example: Bill Gates, Bono, Jeff Bezos, Ted Turner - they do not hold positions in the government of the nations represented by the flags next to their names. If the flag is to represent this then those four should not have flags at all. Queen Elizabeth II is clearly a resident and citizen of the United Kingdom, and is not a resident or citizen of Australia, Jamaica, and so on. -- Chuq (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II isn't a citizen of the United Kingdom. Again, you haven't read the preceeding discussion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see why this discussion took so much space now. Ok, so you have found a technicality to highlight, thanks for that, but I don't think it really adds to the discussion. If it helps, just read references to 'being a citizen' as 'being of a certain nationality'. Now, about the rest of the paragraph - the part that contains the point I was trying to make - did you not read it, or choose to ignore it? -- Chuq (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought - how about someone get hold of that issue of Time and see how they describe her? LukeSurl ^{t c} 02:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's here, though it looks like you have to be a paid-up Time subscriber to read the content. If, as I suspect, they describe her as British, perhaps we can have a Union Flag with a footnote "The accompanying Time article described Queen Elizabeth II as British though in 1952 Elizabeth II was also sovereign of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, Pakistan and South Africa. LukeSurl ^{t c} 02:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Template RfC

For anyone who is interested in POTY, there is an RfC ongoing at Template talk:Time Persons of the Year 1951–1975 about the entries for 1960 & 1975. Feel free to join in - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • UPLOADS) 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ebola fighters description controversy

As the person who wrote the subsection about the Ebola fighters, I noticed it was deleted recently. Since there are lengthy descriptions of the winners like "The Peacemakers" (Mandela, De Klerk, Arafat, etc.) "The Good Samaritans" (Mr. and Mrs. Gates, Bono) and "American Women" (too many to count) who were featured on the cover, where the descriptions also include referencing said people and WHY they were featured on the cover, I believe this same policy should be applied when talking about the Ebola fighters. Thank you.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Was it "for better or for worse" already in '27?

   We cite CatholicVote.org which has written

But first let’s review how they select “Person of the Year.” When this started in 1927 as “Man of the Year” it was described as the person who “for better or for worse, …has done the most to influence the events of the year.”

(Ellipsis is not mine, but IMO presumably that of CV.o ... or possibly of one of their sources?)
   This activist group (IMO presumably less-than-impartial, and arguably rendered suspect by the Great Priestly Buggery Coverup) is not an ideal source, but the 9-decade-old 1927 issue itself is (and a reliable source's image or OCR-scan of the page is just as good). Anyone up for finding that?
--Jerzy•t 22:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I feel it's time we re-visit Elizabeth II's entry at this article. Per WP:WEIGHT, Elizabeth II is identified first & foremost (most times, exclusively) as Queen of the United Kingdom. Time Magazine's story on her, would easily reflect this. I recommend that we have the United Kingdom shown in her 'country' column, with a footenote explaining the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would support this, I don't like the rationale for not including a flag. We should give weight to the UK per reasons above. --Killuminator (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would not. There was lengthy discussion on this and the consensus was to have no country (indeed, I don't know when "Commonwealth realms" snuk its way in there) or flag. Also, "I don't like it" isn't a valid argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait for more folks to chime in. If it appears as though there's a bit of disagreement on this? an Rfc may be needed. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"A bit of disagreement" (which, in this case, is even a stretch) warrants an RfC? I suggest you temper your use of RfCs; you must be pushing some kind of boundaries given the number of RfCs you've had ongoing simultaneously in different locations over the last little while. You might be skirting around guidelines like WP:FORUM and WP:TEND, but not far from them, in my opinion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So far, it's just the 3 of us & there's still a chance that a local consensus may be reached. As for the Rfc option? it's just an option. Obviously, if an overwhelming majority of editors shows up here & endorses the status quo or my proposal? then an Rfc wouldn't be necessary. For now, we can wait & see :) GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that it is possible making a change here isn't a matter of concern to anyone other than you. The fact the consensus has stayed intact for 5 years would strongly suggest that's the case. The fact no one responded to your suggestion for 10 days makes it seem even more so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We shall see how things go. If it remains just the 3 of us? then there's little else to do. Mind you, it's not up to just you & I. Indeed, Killuminator is free to do as he wishes :) GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Redundant.

I have a foreboding sense that your need for drama and battle is going to, in time, irritate the community again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We'll allow others to weigh in here. It's been 5 yrs, so it's not a though I've been bringing this topic up here, every 2 or 3 months. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I never pretended to disallow anyone.

You know exactly what I mean. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I merely expressed my support for change and dissatisfaction with the current state of things. I did not write that sentence as an argument sir and I'm very well aware that it isn't an argument. You misunderstood my intention. --Killuminator (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that Andorra is not included for De Gaulle even though he was Co-Prince of Andorra from 1944 to 1946 (before he was featured on the cover) and again from 1959 to 1969 . Not even a footnote. Many parallels between The Queen and the French head of state were made during a similar argument on the page about eldest state leaders which has another French president on it.--Killuminator (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Elizabeth II & Charlies De Gaulle have been treated inconsistently, in this article. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original issue of TIME but a more recent article about their previous honorees only talks about how she inherited the British throne etc. not even a single mention or Canada, Australia etc. Even the page about the succession to this throne is called Succession to the British throne not Succession to the throne of enumerated states in the title or something similarly needlessly detailed. The British association is very strong no matter how I look at it, and the flags themselves are something that Wikipedians have chosen to put in this articles. --Killuminator (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In full agreement. Futhermore, before December 1952, she was yet to change her titles with the Royal Style and Titles Act. Thus a further sourced reason, to go with just the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I will quote this page. Until 1953 (1952 is they year of the cover, a year before 1953), her official style was by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith. So Great Britain is first, and putting Ireland aside, everything else is lumped together in this phrase and the British Dominions beyond the Seas. Regardless of the title, it is true that she was head of state for Canada and Australia plus some others. Regardless of that fact, protocol and media don't go to such nit picky factual lengths and use British first and foremost. --Killuminator (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO then, United Kingdom (with footnote), is a must. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Simple and prudent. The article is about people, not about states. --Killuminator (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. But, I doubt it'll be that easy to implement. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

These arguments are red herrings, I'm afraid. Elizabeth's titles in 1952 didn't make her any less Queen of Australia or South Africa in 1952. Indeed, even during the reign of her father, it was each realm that had to alter its own title to remove "Emperor of India" because the UK could not legislate for sovereign countries without their request and consent.The fact is thus that Elizabeth didn't reign in 1952 as Queen of the UK and UK territories; she acceded as queen of seven countries.

Any mass media ignorance or inaccuracy isn't a guide for an encyclopedia.

The idea was floated before of having seven flags next to EIIR. I'm fine with that. Though, also fine with the way things are and with having no country or term for a collection of countries next to her name. If one wishes to do the same for DeGaulle as whatever of the aforementioned is done with EIIR, go right ahead. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have pointed out that she was Queen of Australia, Canada etc. as well , much like she is today (that was my penultimate sentence in the longer comment) and that her titles didn't change that fact. This article doesn't deal with statesmen , articles about them need to point out states. The flags on this article are something the Wikipedians have chosen to put there to give the reader a picture about the honoree's background (country). They aren't that relevant to the article in the first place. But if we do add them, the UK flag would make sense, seeing how the reader will associate her with the UK first. I'd welcome other flags as well, but the current remark is just out of place when comparing it to other entries. There is even a picture of Earth for some entries. --Killuminator (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. If we're going to use one flag & one country? then it must be the Union Jack & the UK. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't ever said the the UK/British flag doesn't make sense. It's the UK/British flag alone that doesn't; either factually or within Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, I'm okay with the seven countries/flags being shown next to her name (already with precedent in the list); which means I'm okay with the UK/British flag. I'm also okay with removing the term "Commonwealth realms" from next to her name, which is what was settled on by the last consensus worked out on this talk page. Having nothing for the 'Country' column is not unique within the list (if the odd "global" descriptions with little earths beside them are removed). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My secondary option, would be to delete the country column, entirely. This would remove the flags & countries, of course. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as it's been 5 years, since this discussion was last held. I'm opening an Rfc, for more input. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)