User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2022/September

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Dein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Graham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"With her reign now at an end, some representatives called for republicianism to be ushered in."

Greetings. I don't know whether you saw but I tagged you in my edit summary that manually reverted your content removal of "With her reign now at an end, some representatives called for republicianism to be ushered in". I note you say there is not enough examples to warrant it being in the lead, however, would you consider that there are 5 examples in 5 out of the 15 realms under the section "Political". Considering that the overall weight of that section is aided by the fact most of the "political" responses are repetative condolances, do you not think that on balance it at least deserves to be reflected in the lead as "some". I do want to include this because I desire a well written WP:CREATELEAD that reflects and mirrors the overall structure of the article a lot better, giving insights into all the aspects expected in the article. I note you identified it as being written poorly so if you are willing to reach a compromise may I ask your help to draft a better version?. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hello there again. I have taken on board your concerns that there are not enough examples for it to exist in the lead. I have further added the following under political:

• 1) Ardern being asked about the future of the monarchy:

When asked if the death would rise to a debate on Republicanism, Ardern replied that it was not "...on the agenda anytime soon" but believed it to be "where New Zealand would head in time".

• 2) A former deputy PM of New Zealand on the republican movement:

** Former deputy Prime Minister Don McKinnon told Radio New Zealand there was a possibility that a republican movement could “build up quite a head of steam now".

• 3) As other politicians revived the republican debate within hours of her death, Australian PM Albanese's response:

As the long-running rupublican debate was revived by some politicians within hours of the death bein announced, Albanese told Radio National "today's not the day for politics".

• 4) NZ Greens statement:

** Co-leader Marama Davidson Green Party released a statement on behalf of the Green Party sending "condolances to the Royal Family". She said that "there is no doubt Queen Elizabeth II cared deeply about Aotearoa New Zealand. Her support during history-making events such as the Christchurch earthquakes would have been of great comfort to many". She added that although the Queen "herself said it was up to the people of the Commonwealth to define the relationship between the British monarchy...That is a question for another day".

• This is in addition to these mentions of the debate around republicanism that already exist in the article under political reactions of the 15 realms:

• 5) Scottish Alba General Sec

Scottish Alba Party General Secretary Chris McEleny said there was "no place" for King Charles in an independent Scotland after the end of the Queen's reign.

• 6) Aussie Greens

** Australian Greens leader and federal MP Adam Bandt, along with Australian Senator Mehreen Faruqi, called for Australia to become a republic following the Queen's death.

• 7) Jamaica

Jamaican MP Mikael Phillips stated his desire that the end of the Queen's reign would hasten Jamaica's transition to a republic.

• 8) Antigua and Barbuda

* Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne offered his condolences, saying "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has had an impactful reign, during which her relations with my State and its people have remained mutually respectful and unchanging." Shortly after confirming Charles's status as King of the country on 10 September, Browne, a supporter of republicanism, stated that he planned to hold a referendum on converting the country into a republic.

• I think there now enough content to definitely deserve a mention in the lead. When we think of political responses to the death of Queen Elizabeth there is 1) Condolances and 2) debates around the future of the monarchy. I believe it would be a fair reflection to note in the lead that after the death these things were discussed. I in particular would like to note the last passage of content that I mentioned; Here we have 1 of the 15 leaders of goverment across the Commonwealth Realms openly talking about plans to hold a referendum on replacing the monarchy barely days after the death has happened. Having reflected on your concerns, I still believe it is only right that this is included in the section of the article that tells the reader what its content is concering. Now I have added a few more passages, I plan on including back in the lead to mention that "some responded to issues regarding the future of the monarchy". I am going to rewrite the first paragraph slightly to say:

Elizabeth II, the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, died on 8 September 2022, at the age of 96, leading to reactions from around the world. The new King Charles III paid tribute to his "darling Mama" and proclaimed his son William the Prince of Wales. Politicians throughout the 15 realms reflected on the news and some responded to issues regarding the future of the monarchy. Political figures in other Commonwealth nations and the rest of the world also offered their condolences and tributes, as did members of royal families, religious leaders and other public figures.

• Feel free to tweak as necessary to improve prose or lets discuss further if you still disagree with its inclusion. All the best!

References

I am happy with that new version you have written. I feel it encaspulates all the sides well. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLewisBedford01 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Notification on 3O request.

See WP:3O#Active disagreements. For what it is worth in future edits—WP:DRNC JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

30 input

An editor has contributed a third opinion to our discussion after I submitted a request. Please offer your thoughts in reply and lets see if we still remain in disagreement after discussion. I submitted this request as a first step to see if we can resolve this before the more formal dispute resolution processes. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! Could I please ask you to re-clarify your position now a 3O has contributed? Unless you state that disagreement still remains and we can move this further along, I will assume that the 3O opinion has resolved things and insert the suggested edit instead. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. // Hippo43 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A RfC

I am going to submit a RfC. It will ask "should the opening lead paragraph mention discourse around the future of the monarchy?". In order to establish a starting point in which to stimulate initial discussion, I will include in the opening paragraph—specifying that these are not an either/or but just something to go off—on my side, the most recent suggestion submitted by the 3O that reads "In his first speech as King, Charles III thanked his "darling Mama" for her love and devotion to the nations she served. Politicians throughout the Commonwealth expressed gratitude for her long public service and some reflected on the future of the monarchy.", and then on your side, the most recent revision which also exists as the article's current revision.

Let me know if you have any thoughts. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't own an editor's talk page discussion because they also quoted parts of your discussion.

It isn't a trademark. It is a talk page discussion input that I wrote in order to document what was going on. You can't remove it just because you don't like the fact that 13 of the 271 characters were quoted from you (and for whatever reason that is beyond blatant Stonewalling). Furthermore it is the same discussion in different places, and the edit seeked to join them up.(talk) 19:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II

Hi there. You may not have noticed, but a talk page discussion has been started about the change you wish to make to the lead of the article. As you may not have noticed - because my edit note didn't point to the discussion - I wanted to give you the opportunity to WP:UNDO your edit and take part in the talk page discussion. This would put the article in line with WP:BRD, where your Bold edit has been Reverted and therefore a Discussion takes place. Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Further to the above, please remember the three revert rule, which you are now close to breaking. Please join the discussion on the talk page referred to above before re-inserting that text. --RFBailey (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)