Talk:Republicanism in Antigua and Barbuda

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antigua and Barbuda on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Antigua and BarbudaWikipedia:WikiProject Antigua and BarbudaTemplate:WikiProject Antigua and BarbudaAntigua and Barbuda articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda on 11 May 2023. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was no consensus.

Neutrality[edit]

This page looks like a rehearsal of arguments for a republic, rather than a look at the issue on balance. There is nothing about why it is constituted as it is, nor the historical support, nor indeed anything significant to say before 2021. There is no discussion of opposition to republicanism, and the lack of any actual history or context makes it read like something written from the outside. It appears to have been moved from draft far too soon. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once the editorializing and irrelevancies are stripped away, what's left isn't much more than already found at Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda#Republicanism. The remainder can be merged there. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. The page is still being developed with new additions being made. Titus Gold (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, are these edits adding quotes and trivia for the sake of padding the article? I still don't see why this isn't just redirected to Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda#Republicanism... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is a topic in its own right and meets WP:Notability. I've made some further additions again but there's still room for improvement of course. Titus Gold (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following recent edits, I think the neutrality banner can now be removed @Sirfurboy Titus Gold (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So as per Miesianiacal, what you have added is quotes and trivia. The background is just two sentences, and the fact that Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda#Republicanism exists and that there is nothing significant here that is not there, raises questions as to whether this is just a POVFORK that could be merged back there. On the assumption that republicanism is a notable topic (as you assert), I would expect there would be reliable secondary sources that discuss the issue. What are they? At this point the information is a bunch of primary sources with a bit of filler from the CIA factbook and elsewhere. This remains a long way from a neutral treatment. Again, I am unsure why it was hurried out of draft so quickly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A talkshow discussion isn't notable. Neither is what the producer of that show thinks. Nor a youth symposium. Sanders didn't call "for all countries of the Caribbean to become republics"; which would be inane, given the majority already are republics. He didn't even call for the monarchies to become republics. He wrote "it is more than likely that the eight independent Commonwealth countries which are still monarchical states, with Queen Elizabeth II as their Sovereign, will become Republics", which is hardly a rallying cry for the Antiguan republican fight. Once again, we're left with what can easily fit into Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda#Republicanism.

There's also the matter of a number of the sources (either still or formerly used) manifestly misrepresenting monarchicial history and/or Antigua and Barbuda's independenct status. How do we deal with calls for a republic when the rationale behind those calls is at odds with facts? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy News reports as far as I am ware are secondary sources. The CIA factbook provides the background of the type of constitution Antigua and Barbuda has. If you don't think it's relevant go ahead and remove it, but I would've thought it's a sensible inclusion.

I think a talkshow discussion shows that republicanism is being discussed in the country but this reference seems to have now been removed.

@Miesianiacal Try not to just remove chunks of content without consensus please. Titus Gold (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping me into discussions I am watching. You say News reports as far as I am ware are secondary sources. This is incorrect. See my answer to you at Talk:Republicanism in the Bahamas. As for the removals that you have re-inserted, per WP:ONUS,

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

(my emphasis). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing the guidance, that's fair enough.

I'm in the process of adding additional citations, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:BRD, not WP:BDR.

You've added O'Marde's opinion twice, as well as another misrepresentation of Sanders' words. Additionally, "the eight independent Commonwealth countries which are British constitutional monarchies will become republics" refers to nothing that actually exists (or could exist). I'd say how the sentence ought to be written, but, it's part of Sanders' commentary, which isn't relevant to this article, anyway, and I believe I can't make any more reverts today. That said, you're also at your WP:3RR limit. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attention given to the article. O'Marde says/suggests different things which seem to be relevant. I'm not sure why you suggest that it's a misinterpretation. You're welcome to re-word it slightly if you feel that would be necessary. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Marde having said things at different times isn't a reason to spread short mentions of her remarks over two different areas of an article. Everything O'Madre said (assuming it's notable and relevant) can be put together in a sentence or two.

I didn't say Sanders' words are misrepresented. I said his words aren't relevant to this article--his article is broad and, consequently, vague, not even mentioning Antigua and Barbuda, let alone focusing on it--and should be deleted. Which takes away any need to sort out whatever "the eight independent Commonwealth countries which are British constitutional monarchies" are.

This article is purportedly about republicanism in Angituga and Barbuda, not in the United Kingdom or in The Bahamas. What Bahamians think about the British monarchy doubly has no meaning to this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy Are you happy for the neutrality banner be removed now? Titus Gold (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what ways have you addressed the neutrality and sourcing concerns expressed by two editors? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added secondary citations and there has been re-wording since the neutrality banner was raised. There are multiple references to stances on not moving to a republic and content has also been removed that was not deemed to be notable. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the secondary sources? in what way do they establish the notability of a movement for the replacement of the constitutional monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda with a republican form of government ? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a primary references issue rather than neutrality so perhaps you should switch the banner to that? I've added multiple news sources that are secondary so perhaps there's no need for a banner at all any longer.

Titus Gold (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some other secondary sources as well. Titus Gold (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added two secondary sources. One is on the subject of Australian republicanism and the other is an Expert briefing.

The expert briefing^[1] is used to support:

In September 2022, following the death of Elizabeth II, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne said he would call for a referendum on becoming a republic within three years, claiming it would finalize independence

It doesn't fully support that sentence, but it does confirm that as of 21 September 2022, a referendum had been announced within the next 3 years. The statement was not in dispute though. What you have not yet done is to read what the expert briefing actually does say and consider building any article around that information. What it tells us is that a referendum has been proposed, but any move to republicanism is likely to be slow and limited because:

any move to a republic could be derailed by constitutional questions;
that a vote may be complicated by majorities required and by the fact that it has little substantive effect in the minds of voters; and
that republics would remain in the commonwealth (which you do have, in the form of a quote, but this piecemeal bunch of quotations is a large pert of what is wrong with the article and that issue deserves discussion).

But what is really the problem with that expert briefing is that this is all it is. It is not discussing the question at depth, and is not providing us any good information to establish a republican movement beyond the proposed referendum. Indeed, as Gaston Brown says, he does not think the people have really thought about it.

So let's look at the other reference,^[2] This is about Australian republicanism. You use it here because it has a single clause about Antigua and Barbuda:

there is some interest in [republicanism] in Antigua and Barbuda.

This, then, is hardly what I meant by a secondary source to support the page subject! But it is, in fact, quite an interesting source because, in the context of Australian republicanism, it traces the history of the movement, and discusses the constitutional questions. It discusses the process by which republics are re-admitted to the commonwealth, and it discusses why Australia has a substantial republican movement, where the other old dominions do not. It also covers why the issue has been frustrated by a failure to settle on the alternative form of government proposed. In this, I see a lot of the source material that probably was considered in the expert briefing. As a model, that paper is very good, but as a source to establish this page's subject, it is wholly lacking.

To be clear then, the secondary source issue is this: we are not looking for secondary sources to demonstrate the veracity of individual statements: we are looking for such sources to establish the page subject and to begin to understand and build a framework for the article (and, indeed, to show why there should be an article at all, rather than a section in the current and existing page on the Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda, which we already have). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. This seems to be about secondary sources rather than neutrality so perhaps you should swap banners to reflect that.

Because the movement in Antigua and Barbuda seems have become more mainstream recently, it may not have many papers or books discussing it. News articles can be secondary sources as well if they're not holding the initial interview themselves, no? Titus Gold (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source issue is about neutrality. The collation of a bunch of primary sources to create a page narrative is a kind of original research. The narrative you present here is not the narrative of the sources, it is the narrative of the page editor(s). It is your narrative. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which is a tertiary source. Pages are meant to reflect the mainstream narrative of secondary sources. By making the page a secondary source, a curated collation of primary sources, to present a narrative to the reader, you subvert the purpose of Wikipedia. The reason it is a bad thing^[TM] is because the encyclopaedia now represents to the reader that there is a movement, a thing, a subject, where you have just admitted there is not:

Because the movement in Antigua and Barbuda seems have become more mainstream recently, it may not have many papers or books discussing it.

If no one is discussing it, it is not a thing! If there are no secondary sources, there is no subject and this page is a POVFORK. And if it is a POVFORK then it is not neutral. That is why I placed the banner. If any other editor watching this page, other than yourself, thinks there is no neutrality issue, I will bow to the consensus (whilst noting I am not the only person here to have expressed concerns about POV here), but to me the neutrality issue is very clear. You created this page and all the other republican pages because that is the narrative you wanted to represent. Yet without secondary sources, it is all POV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is being discussed in news articles, some of which are secondary sources.

The latest deletion by @Miesianiacal seems quite excessive, removing some valuable insight as well (including secondary sources). Titus Gold (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They removed (Ritchie, 2006) which I discussed above. That only has one sentence of interest: There is some interest in [republicanism] in Antigua and Barbuda. As I discussed above, that source is actually about Australian republicanism, so whilst it is a secondary source, it is not a good source for this article. I support its removal. As before, the problem here is that this article has no secondary sources on the topic of the article. It is almost as though no such treatment exists! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to access the full article? I see nothing about Antigua and Barbuda in the synopsis. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am, and I have read it. The article is about Australian republicanism, the growth of the movement and its history, the constitutional questions and how it failed to bring about change because of lack of agreement on alternatives etc. The only mention of Antigua and Barbuda was a single clause of one sentence talking about republicanism elsewhere, and that is the clause I quoted: There is some interest in it in Antigua and Barbuda. The paper is not about Antigua and Barbuda, the mention is passing. It adds nothing beyond the primary sources, and the fact that it is a secondary source makes this no more valuable, because it is not a secondary source about the page subject. We are still looking for any secondary sources on republicanism in Antigua and Barbuda. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3,000 removal. It includes multiple sources, some of which secondary. Titus Gold (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Caribbean republican shift may be slow and limited". Emerald Expert Briefings. oxan–db (oxan–db). 2022-01-01. doi:10.1108/OXAN-DB272836. ISSN 2633-304X.
^ Ritchie, Jonathan; Markwell, Don (2006-10-01). "Australian and Commonwealth republicanism". The Round Table. 95 (387): 727–737. doi:10.1080/00358530601046976. ISSN 0035-8533.

Potential additional sources[edit]

https://ewnews.com/what-about-a-federation-former-culture-director-says-bahamas-must-chart-its-own-identity-away-from-the-crown-and-others

Titus Gold (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

As per the page banner, please note that a merge discussion for this page is taking place at Talk:Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 'merge' proposal ended in 'no consensus', fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and notability banner[edit]

I've removed the banner since there has been a significant change to the article both around the time the banners were added and since then. The article content all seems appropriate as of today. Titus Gold (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Caribbean republican shift may be slow and limited". Emerald Expert Briefings. oxan–db (oxan–db). 2022-01-01. doi:10.1108/OXAN-DB272836. ISSN 2633-304X.

[2] Ritchie, Jonathan; Markwell, Don (2006-10-01). "Australian and Commonwealth republicanism". The Round Table. 95 (387): 727–737. doi:10.1080/00358530601046976. ISSN 0035-8533.

[1]

[2]