{{Troubles restriction}} |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{oldafdfull| date = 17 May 2011 | result = '''speedy keep''' | page = Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland }} |
{{oldafdfull| date = 17 May 2011 | result = '''speedy keep''' | page = Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland }} |
||
{{Troubles restriction}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
||
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=mid}} |
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=mid}} |
Revision as of 04:50, 18 May 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some news stories to use as sources
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sections
As it's a four day visit, it would seem logical to have a section for each day of the visit. Another possibility is a section on international reaction to the visit, should there be any. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Change of title?
Perhaps the title of the article should be changed to "Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland as seen by the Guardian"? --89.216.218.134 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, other sources are available, as they say on the BBC. Feel free to add some yourself. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ha! Good one. Perhaps you need to edit it, with references, to restore the WP:NPOV which you think is missing. But I do like your turn of phrase. :) DBaK (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth II
To me the repeated references to "Elizabeth II" read very, very oddly indeed. OK I am not the most fanatical obsessive about royal matters (I fear I read the wrong newspaper, in fact ^^) but surely it's normal, without subscribing to any particular school of thought or PoV, to just call her "the Queen" since I think we've established which particular queen the article is about? "Liz" would seem a bit informal and "the Queen" does seem to be a pretty common usage. Well, not common common, that would be vulgar of me, but you know what I mean. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe just plain "Elizabeth" would be fine after the first reference. Hot Stop (c) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Referring to her as "Elizabeth" is as crass as referring to President McAleese as "Mary" or President Obama as "Barack", but then this entire page reads as if it has been edited by Gerry Adams.--Wessexboy (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can't agree with that Gerry Adams assessment at all, but you might want to try to improve the article. I do agree that "Elizabeth" is no good, I don't think that it's up to Wikipedia to feel bound to call her "Her Majesty", so I return to "the Queen" as being appropriate, descriptive and inoffensive - it is, after all, basically the gig that the old dear has got, no? I think I might be WP:BOLD and just do it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Using the term "Elizabeth II" is no different from using "Obama", imo. Right now the term "the Queen" is overused. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? Henry VIII uses the term "Henry" throughout the article. Louis XIV does too. And it's not exactly the same thing as using the "Barack" for the President, as it's acceptable to use "Obama" for him, and Elizabeth doesn't have a surname per se (we don't use the honorific "Mr. Obama" or "President Obama" on the site). Hot Stop (c) 04:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Impartial?
Reading this article and remembering what I have seen deleted, edited and derided in other articles, I am surprised that the lack of balance has managed to escape the usually vigilant eyes of all those scissor happy editors. Can it be that the criticism that this is a Guardian article or edited by Gerry Adams isn't far off the mark? This is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia not an exemplar of current political correctness. User:jkslouth 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the one blatantly POV-pushing section as it's totally unrelated to her visit. The very first line of the section said it all: something "coincided" with her visit. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Does WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES apply?
What is everyone's opinion about this page's place in relation to Wikipedia:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Final_remedies_for_AE_case? Would this article "reasonably" (second point of the AE ruling) be construed as being related to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)