Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-18-2018, 05:18 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,700
Is fighting ignorance no longer the mandate in General Questions?

Based on the recent GQ thread about the Queen of England's cell phone.

Corrections to the factual error in the thread title, about the proper way to refer to the Queen of the UK, have been barred as nitpickery.

But that's what GQ is about - imparting accurate factual information and correcting errors.

AK84 was perfectly correct: there has not been a Queen of England since 1707. It is a factual error to continue using that term.

The reason given for the bar was that "everyone knew who the OP meant"
(my paraphrase).

That's not the point.

The point is that a Board that says it's dedicated to fighting ignorance should welcome corrections of factual errors, especially in GQ. Apparently that's no longer the case.

So is everyone okay with me referring to Donald Trump as the President of the Continental Congress? It may not technically be right, but everyone knows who I mean, right?
  #2  
Old 11-18-2018, 05:41 PM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,131
I haven't even read the thread, but I presume that the mistake was deemed corrected and any further bickering about it was deemed a hijack.

amirite?
  #3  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:08 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,155
“Queen of England” and “Union Jack” and and “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” and “a chimpanzee is a monkey” are errors that require correction only if the topic is something specific (e.g., formal titles and taxonomic nomenclature).

For the purposes of non-specific discussion they are all generally understood acceptable terms that present no apparent ignorance that requires fighting.
  #4  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:16 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,030
I'm with Northern Piper here. While the nitpick wasn't necessary, it was correct and an interesting bit of trivia. And that's part of what makes this board entertaining. IMHO it did not deserve snide responses or moderator action.
  #5  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:16 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
But that's what GQ is about - imparting accurate factual information and correcting errors.
I'd say that the main purpose of General Questions is to answer the questions that people ask. Knowing the Queen's correct title doesn't address the issue of whether she carries a cell phone. Other posts, including those that correct errors, may be interesting - but they shouldn't distract from the main purpose.
  #6  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:31 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I'm with Northern Piper here. While the nitpick wasn't necessary, it was correct and an interesting bit of trivia.
It might be an interesting bit of trivia if this annoying nitpick had not already been made fifty billion times previously. As said, no one was confused about who was being referred to. So why bring it up? Are we going to nitpick every misunderstanding or misstatement made on this board? If so, it's going to get really lonely around here.
  #7  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:34 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Based on the recent GQ thread about the Queen of England's cell phone.
...

AK84 was perfectly correct: there has not been a Queen of England since 1707. It is a factual error to continue using that term. ...

So is everyone okay with me referring to Donald Trump as the President of the Continental Congress? It may not technically be right, but everyone knows who I mean, right?

No, but Trump is the President of Utah. Just as QE2 is the Queen of her dominions, which include- England.

This is not a matter of being right or wrong, it's a useless pedantry, and it has been repeated on this board time after time.

People have even gotten warned for useless pedantry.

And should I correct everyone every time they use the term "sunrise" or "sunset"? After all, the Sun doesn't "set"- the Earth rotates so as it appears to set.

Last edited by DrDeth; 11-18-2018 at 06:37 PM.
  #8  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:43 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
It might be an interesting bit of trivia if this annoying nitpick had not already been made fifty billion times previously.
I think if people keep making the mistake, it's worth repeating the corrections.
  #9  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:51 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I think if people keep making the mistake, it's worth repeating the corrections.
Again, it's not a mistake. That's why nitpicking it is pointless pedantry.

Merely referring to "the Queen of England" is not an error. We all know who that is. It's perfectly legitimate to make that reference.

Saying that "Elizabeth II's formal title is 'Queen of England'" is an error. Unless that specific error has been made, then there's no error to correct.
  #10  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:55 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,221
Equating the UK with England is a pretty lazy, shitty thing to do. Sanctioned by a mod too!
  #11  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:59 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'd say that the main purpose of General Questions is to answer the questions that people ask. Knowing the Queen's correct title doesn't address the issue of whether she carries a cell phone. Other posts, including those that correct errors, may be interesting - but they shouldn't distract from the main purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
It might be an interesting bit of trivia if this annoying nitpick had not already been made fifty billion times previously. As said, no one was confused about who was being referred to. So why bring it up? Are we going to nitpick every misunderstanding or misstatement made on this board? If so, it's going to get really lonely around here.
As a GQ moderator, I basically agree with this. There's a fine line (perhaps no line) between nitpicking and annoying pedantry. The correction was not relevant to the question being asked, and was leading to a hijack as people disputed it. I agree with engineer_comp_geek's handling of it.

The point of GQ is to obtain answers to questions, not to nitpick to death every inadvertent misstatement made by another poster. If you wish to regard this as not "fighting against ignorance," you're welcome to, I guess, but I think that the majority of posters find this tedious and annoying.

Last edited by Colibri; 11-18-2018 at 06:59 PM.
  #12  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:59 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I'm with Northern Piper here. While the nitpick wasn't necessary, it was correct and an interesting bit of trivia. And that's part of what makes this board entertaining.
What he said.
  #13  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:59 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,766
If a thread refers to the woman in question as "Queen Elizabeth" without any "II" following, is that also an error that needs to be corrected? Because there's at least one other woman who might be the one being referred to. (Two, actually. Wasn't the mother of the woman in question also "Queen Elizabeth"?) Do those of you who support this needless nitpick invite similar nitpickery of your posts?

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 11-18-2018 at 07:01 PM.
  #14  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:03 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
If a thread refers to the woman in question as "Queen Elizabeth" without any "II" following, is that also an error that needs to be corrected? Because there's at least one other woman who might be the one being referred to. (Three, actually. Wasn't the mother of the woman in question also "Queen Elizabeth"?) Do those of you who support this needless nitpick invite similar nitpickery of your posts?

Just call her Queen Elizabeth II. That's pretty unambiguous, and shouldn't be beyond the smart and hip people here.
  #15  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:08 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Equating the UK with England is a pretty lazy, shitty thing to do. Sanctioned by a mod too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Just call her Queen Elizabeth II. That's pretty unambiguous, and shouldn't be beyond the smart and hip people here.
Moderator Note

The snark and eyerolling are unnecessary. Let's keep the discussion civil in this forum.
  #16  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:08 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,766
There was a reason I used that particular example. Even the pedant who started this thread has referred to the woman in question as simply 'Queen Elizabeth". Did anyone climb all over him for this?
  #17  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:17 PM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,491
But the Queen Elizabeth II IS the Queen of England. She’s also the Queen of a number of other places. She’s smiling back at me on all my Canadian $20 bills for example.
  #18  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:36 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,308
Exactly. The correct and proper list of her titles would be long (and interesting, at least once*) but wholly unnecessary to ask the question.


*Her correct title in New Zealand is Kotuku (Maori), which translates to "The White Heron".
  #19  
Old 11-18-2018, 08:07 PM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,953
There's "small but important correction" and there's "nitpick". This was the former. "Queen of England" versus "Queen of the UK" is a live political/cultural issue that's significant for millions of people, because it's a honking great marker for not knowing the difference between England and the UK in general. That pisses off a lot of Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, not least because they deeply suspect that most of the English also frequently forget that there's a difference between England and the UK in general.

There's lots of tiny trivial things in the world that it's nonetheless important to get right. For instance, I find it hard to remember that it's ok to call a US politician a Democrat, but bad to say they're in the Democrat Party. If I started a thread "how many people belong to the Democrat Party?" and five people jumped in to say "actually, it's Democratic" that would be fair dealing, not nitpicky, because it's culturally and politically important.

If you say "Queen Elizabeth" and someone pops up with "don't you know it's Queen Elizabeth II" feel free to bop them for nitpicking. Or start a long digression on whether she's really QEI, whichever takes your fancy
__________________
It is easier to fall than to climb ... letting go for the fall brings a wonderful feeling of ease and power
- Katherine Kerr Daggerspell
  #20  
Old 11-18-2018, 08:21 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 24,244
I'll go one step more. IMHO someone who comes into a thread only to nitpick is threadshitting. It's condescending and serves no purpose except to demonstrate the poster's pathetic need to score points in some imagined "World's Smartest Doper" contest.
  #21  
Old 11-18-2018, 08:40 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,296
In the real world, I agree that nitpicking can be rude. But on the SDMB? That's what we all do, all the time. It's part of the culture of the board, and especially that of GQ. We constantly will come in with little bits of "Um, actually..." despite this being considered rude elsewhere.

That doesn't mean the bickering can't be a hijack that needs to be stopped. But the initial nitpick is supposed to be allowed. It's part of the Fighting Ignorance aspect that we don't let false information go without correcting it.

Sure, you can do so in a jerkish way, and that should be discouraged. But nitpicking itself is our ethos. It's been completely accepted since I got her 10 years ago.
  #22  
Old 11-18-2018, 09:31 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,706
Links, people, Christ!

Here's how AK84 could have explained the issue:

Quote:
Nitpick: she's properly called "The Queen of the United Kingdom", and Scotland will love you for remembering it. As to the cell phone I got no idea, so carry on!
Here's what he did instead:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
The last Queen of England died in 1714 and had not bend that title since 1707. So I would guess, no.
His comment isn't fighting ignorance, it's just supercilious snark that jabs without enlightening. And screw that. Helpfully telling folks cool things they didn't know is one thing. Snidely telling people they're wrong without letting them know how or why is another.
  #23  
Old 11-18-2018, 09:49 PM
Superdude Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,148
Had the correction been part of a post actually contributing something to the thread, I'd have been okay with it. The way it was presented, however, was all snark with no substance. I gotta agree with the moderation on that.
__________________
"Well, let me just go on record as saying that I would never shoot a cat.[...]. Unless it was approaching in a threatening manner... or refused to stop upon my command. I would probably just fire a warning shot to make my point, but that's really a field decision. I can't commit to it at this juncture."
  #24  
Old 11-18-2018, 10:30 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Had the correction been part of a post actually contributing something to the thread, I'd have been okay with it. The way it was presented, however, was all snark with no substance. I gotta agree with the moderation on that.
This. I can't object to occasional pedantry since I've been guilty of it myself, but usually in support of some kind of actual point or contribution. This was completely pointless snark and IMHO was gently but properly moderated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
So is everyone okay with me referring to Donald Trump as the President of the Continental Congress? It may not technically be right, but everyone knows who I mean, right?
No, actually, everyone would not know who you mean. If I Google "Queen of England" I get 748,000,000 hits and a picture of Queen Elizabeth II. If I Google "President of the Continental Congress" I get John Hancock.
  #25  
Old 11-18-2018, 11:18 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,150
This seems like another issue where the overall parochialism of the mod staff is a negative factor. Yes, AK should have been a lot less snarky and more informative in their nitpickery. But at the same time, no mod indicated an awareness of how hot button a topic this was for non-English UKers.

I think dismissing it as just a hijack or pedantry is dismissive of real concerns of marginalization and exclusion.
  #26  
Old 11-18-2018, 11:30 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
There's "small but important correction" and there's "nitpick". This was the former. "Queen of England" versus "Queen of the UK" is a live political/cultural issue that's significant for millions of people, because it's a honking great marker for not knowing the difference between England and the UK in general. That pisses off a lot of Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, not least because they deeply suspect that most of the English also frequently forget that there's a difference between England and the UK in general.
However, as far as I can see the correction was not made on those grounds. AFAIK AK84 is neither a Scot, nor Welsh, nor Northern Irish; I believe he is Pakistani. If in fact the correction had in fact been made by someone of those groups your point might be more relevant. Coming from AK84 it was a nitpick.
  #27  
Old 11-18-2018, 11:33 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
This seems like another issue where the overall parochialism of the mod staff is a negative factor. Yes, AK should have been a lot less snarky and more informative in their nitpickery. But at the same time, no mod indicated an awareness of how hot button a topic this was for non-English UKers.

I think dismissing it as just a hijack or pedantry is dismissive of real concerns of marginalization and exclusion.
Again, the correction was not made on political grounds, and there was no indication that such concerns were an issue for the poster who made it.
  #28  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:00 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Had the correction been part of a post actually contributing something to the thread, I'd have been okay with it. The way it was presented, however, was all snark with no substance. I gotta agree with the moderation on that.
I agree. If someone asks how many football games the University of West Virginia has won this year, I could correct the error and provide helpful information. I could say:

1. They have won 8 games. However, the school is West Virginia University, not the University of West Virginia.

or, I could be snarky and say:

2. As there is no University of West Virginia, it has won zero games this year.

I think that #2 should get a mod note as it is needlessly snarky.
  #29  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:16 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Again, the correction was not made on political grounds, and there was no indication that such concerns were an issue for the poster who made it.
So if I correct someone who says "Democrat Party", that's just pointless nitpickery because I'm not American?

AK has, from what I gather, spent quite some time in the UK, enough to get a sense of what's a hot-button issue there. Hell, I've only spent holidays there and even I know "Queen of England" is going to get up a lot of people's noses.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-19-2018 at 12:17 AM.
  #30  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:49 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So if I correct someone who says "Democrat Party", that's just pointless nitpickery because I'm not American?

AK has, from what I gather, spent quite some time in the UK, enough to get a sense of what's a hot-button issue there. Hell, I've only spent holidays there and even I know "Queen of England" is going to get up a lot of people's noses.
Several posters have addressed this. If someone asks "Did the Democrat Party win control of the NY Senate?" then you may respond that the party is correctly referred to as the Democratic Party and that some people consider the term Democrat party as offensive and denigrating, but that yes the Democratic Party won control of the New York State Senate.

What you may not do, in GQ, is come across with a shitty snarky answer like "Since there is no such thing as the Democrat party, they won no elections this cycle."

The politics of the answer in the OP had nothing to do with the moderation.

Last edited by UltraVires; 11-19-2018 at 12:50 AM.
  #31  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:21 AM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 14,038
1. Thank you to LHoD for finally posting a link. Jeez!

2. No warning issued. Good.

3. LHoD shows best practice.

4. Sort of. No worries, but I think engineer_comp_geek jumped the gun. A few wisecracks now and then are part of this board's culture (though GQ has been tightened up somewhat over the past 4 years). Methinks 2 posts on the subject (and maybe an erudite tangent) wouldn't have hurt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
The correction was not relevant to the question being asked, and was leading to a hijack as people disputed it.
Yes, it was a tangent and a bit of snark (from both parties). But do you really think it was headed towards a lengthy hijack and would prevent the OP from being addressed? Does engineer_comp_geek believe that? If so, we're all good. But I question that assessment. IANAmoderator, this is not legal advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
What you may not do, in GQ, is come across with a shitty snarky answer like "Since there is no such thing as the Democrat party, they won no elections this cycle."
Well that looks like a political jab. But I don't see a big problem with the snark, aside from being insufficiently amusing. Not my style, but still.
----

Best practice I say? If you must do snark and you're not sure if it's amusing, try at least to tack on some helpful information. A lot of posts get moderated because the snark:content ratio is off. Note that I'm pretty sure this would NOT be considered best practice by eg LHoD or the moderators for that matter.
  #32  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:47 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So if I correct someone who says "Democrat Party", that's just pointless nitpickery because I'm not American?
.
I am a lifelong Democrat Politician (of sort) and I have no objections to Democrat party.
  #33  
Old 11-19-2018, 02:20 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,150
Others do. With reason.

And UltraVires, I meant a non-snarky correction. I've already acknowledged that AK was needlessly snarky.
  #34  
Old 11-19-2018, 02:52 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Yes, because us Democrats should always let the GOp decide that our name is a pejorative. Maybe we should laugh at their ridiculous attempt and take back "Democrat"?
  #35  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:55 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So if I correct someone who says "Democrat Party", that's just pointless nitpickery because I'm not American?
By "American", I assume you mean "a citizen of the United States of America". There are plenty of Americans who are not from the U.S.A.
  #36  
Old 11-19-2018, 06:03 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
By "American", I assume you mean "a citizen of the United States of America". There are plenty of Americans who are not from the U.S.A.
Is this some kind of pedantry satire?
  #37  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:15 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,133
The term "American" commonly and correctly refers to a citizen of the United States of America, even though there are many other American nations.

The term "Queen of England" commonly and correctly refers to the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the associated Commonwealth, even though that Kingdom and Commonwealth encompasses many other nations.

Said monarch could also be correctly referred to as the Queen of Canada, or the Queen of Australia, or a number of titles, even though she isn't commonly referred to in that way.

And in fact, "Queen of England" is a better descriptor for her than "Elizabeth", or even "Elizabeth II", since there is one and exactly one Queen of England, but there are multiple women titled "Elizabeth II" of various places.
  #38  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:36 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Is this some kind of pedantry satire?
Yep, but I think it also proves a point.
  #39  
Old 11-19-2018, 07:45 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,675
Wow. I had completely forgotten about that thread. So imagine my surprise when I clicked here and and began to read.
I’ll ignore the merits of the mod note, just to say that this post....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The term "American" commonly and correctly refers to a citizen of the United States of America, even though there are many other American nations.

The term "Queen of England" commonly and correctly refers to the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the associated Commonwealth, even though that Kingdom and Commonwealth encompasses many other nations.

Said monarch could also be correctly referred to as the Queen of Canada, or the Queen of Australia, or a number of titles, even though she isn't commonly referred to in that way.

And in fact, "Queen of England" is a better descriptor for her than "Elizabeth", or even "Elizabeth II", since there is one and exactly one Queen of England, but there are multiple women titled "Elizabeth II" of various places.
.....is completely, utterly wrong. Elizabeth II has many titles and has had many more. One which she has never had, is Queen of England. The comparison with Canada and Australia is misplaced. Those are nation-states. England is a sub-national entity. It has no monarchy of its own, anymore than Manitoba or New South Wales do.

England was once a nation state. Nowadays it’s a constituent of a nation state. Just because it once was, does not make it one today. The President of Italy, is not also the President of the Two Sicilies and Florence, Piedmont and Venice. The President of Tanzania is not also President of Zanzibar*.
*The President of Zanzibar is the title given to the Head of Government of the federating unit, though.

Last edited by AK84; 11-19-2018 at 07:48 AM.
  #40  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:06 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The term "Queen of England" commonly and correctly refers to the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the associated Commonwealth, even though that Kingdom and Commonwealth encompasses many other nations.
Commonly, perhaps, but not correctly.

Quote:
Said monarch could also be correctly referred to as the Queen of Canada, or the Queen of Australia, or a number of titles, even though she isn't commonly referred to in that way.
Yes, because she is in fact the Queen of Canada, Australia etc. But she is not the Queen of England; England has no Queen.

Quote:
And in fact, "Queen of England" is a better descriptor for her than "Elizabeth", or even "Elizabeth II", since there is one and exactly one Queen of England, but there are multiple women titled "Elizabeth II" of various places.
No, because she is "Elizabeth", and she is "Elizabeth II" but she is not Queen of England. There are zero and exactly zero Queens of England.

"You should be polite and helpful if you're correcting someone's terminology" is a good ethos.
"If you're not polite and helpful when correcting someone's terminology then we can just ignore your correction" is a bad ethos.
"If you're not polite and helpful when correcting someone's terminology then they're actually right" is a ridiculous ethos.
  #41  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:07 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Wow. I had completely forgotten about that thread. So imagine my surprise when I clicked here and and began to read.
Iíll ignore the merits of the mod note, just to say that this post....

.....is completely, utterly wrong. Elizabeth II has many titles and has had many more. One which she has never had, is Queen of England. The comparison with Canada and Australia is misplaced. Those are nation-states. England is a sub-national entity. It has no monarchy of its own, anymore than Manitoba or New South Wales do.

England was once a nation state. Nowadays itís a constituent of a nation state. Just because it once was, does not make it one today. The President of Italy, is not also the President of the Two Sicilies and Florence, Piedmont and Venice. The President of Tanzania is not also President of Zanzibar*.
*The President of Zanzibar is the title given to the Head of Government of the federating unit, though.
This is a good example of what this thread is about, on both sides.

It is providing relevant information that many people do not know, and therefore fighting ignorance.

But it's also needlessly calling someone "wrong." Just because something isn't an official title doesn't mean it's totally invalid as a descriptor or way to refer to someone.

(Maybe it'd be like referring to the POTUS or his administration as "the White House," as in "the White House said..." or "the White House did..."? "The White House" is not an official name of the presidential administration, but it's a common way of referring to it.)

Hopefully we can fight ignorance without fighting each other.
  #42  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:41 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,011
Quoting the Act of Union at people is not actually very helpful at fighting ignorance because the issue is mid-20th century social changes, not 18th century constitutional changes. "Queen of England"* was utterly standard** usage for centuries after the union, including the period in which the English language was exported around the globe, so it's to be expected that peoples who are at a remove from the social changes will not change their language at the same rate. If you want to correct someone who isn't familiar with that, tell them about the other national identities in the United Kingdom, not an irrelevant legal change that occurred 250 years before the linguistic change.

*The present queen even called herself such in her Christmas speech in 1953.
**And yes, I realize that there were probably people who were put off by that terminology during that time.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-19-2018 at 08:45 AM.
  #43  
Old 11-19-2018, 08:53 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,675
You do realise that EIIR monograms were smashed in Scotland and there was a Court case against the coronation oath and regnal name?
So, it was a pretty live issue. At a time when Unionist feeling in Scotland was at its highest.
  #44  
Old 11-19-2018, 09:30 AM
Biffster's Avatar
Biffster Biffster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So if I correct someone who says "Democrat Party", that's just pointless nitpickery because I'm not American?

AK has, from what I gather, spent quite some time in the UK, enough to get a sense of what's a hot-button issue there. Hell, I've only spent holidays there and even I know "Queen of England" is going to get up a lot of people's noses.


So if I understand this correctly, Queen Elizabeth II can only be queen of countries where she does not actually live. Even though she resides in England, she is Queen of the UK, according to what I am reading here. She is Queen if the Commonwealth of Nations. That seems kind of messed up. Will any of this terminology change under Brexit?
  #45  
Old 11-19-2018, 09:53 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
So if I understand this correctly, Queen Elizabeth II can only be queen of countries where she does not actually live.
She very much lives in the UK.
  #46  
Old 11-19-2018, 09:59 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffster View Post
So if I understand this correctly, Queen Elizabeth II can only be queen of countries where she does not actually live. Even though she resides in England, she is Queen of the UK, according to what I am reading here. She is Queen if the Commonwealth of Nations. That seems kind of messed up. Will any of this terminology change under Brexit?
The country where she lives is the UK, of which she is Queen. When she's living in Balmoral, her Scottish residence, she remains Queen of the UK. It is impossible for her to live in England, or Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, without living in the UK.

(Country is an amphibolous term here. The UK is a country, and a state. It consists of several countries which are not independent states. England doesn't have a seat at the UN, the UK does. England doesn't make treaties with other countries, the UK does. England doesn't go to war with other countries, the UK does. These are the things that States do. The Queen is Head of State, and you can't be HoS of a country that is not a State.)*

Brexit will not directly affect the terminology concerning which countries the Queen is HoS of. There is a chance that it will affect the make up of the UK by encouraging Scottish independence and Northern Irish reunification with Ireland (don't bet the house on it though.) In the former case, the Queen would become Queen of Scotland as well as Queen of the (now smaller) UK (almost certainly); in the latter, she would not become Queen of Ireland and she would continue as Queen of the (now smaller) UK.

*I realise that to American readers, the term "state" is ambiguous, but I'm assuming context makes things clear.
  #47  
Old 11-19-2018, 10:02 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,675
Ok, again, no comment on the mod note, but for purposes of clarification, why was that a worthy of a note, but Ulfreida’s fit in the moustache thread not?
  #48  
Old 11-19-2018, 10:17 AM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Ok, again, no comment on the mod note, but for purposes of clarification, why was that a worthy of a note, but Ulfreidaís fit in the moustache thread not?
That's MPSIMS not GQ, so different forum with different mods.
  #49  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:20 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,651
For the record, I posted the link to the Wikipedia not to endorse the hijack, I agree that it was nothing more than a hijack. But having been said, it seemed more likely to cause issue and further discussion by going unexplained than by having someone fill in the gap. Ergo, a link to the relevant Wikipedia link for everyone curious to know what the hell the objection was talking about.
  #50  
Old 11-19-2018, 01:22 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 20,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
By "American", I assume you mean "a citizen of the United States of America". There are plenty of Americans who are not from the U.S.A.
And here we cross another line: It isn't pedantry to "correct" someone in a way that's controversial.

Or is Jerusalem properly in Palestine, then?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017