Talk:Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II

Crystal Balling?

Might we be looking 'too far' ahead, in having this article? I'm not calling for an AfD, but if the Queen dies between now & before February 6, 2012, the article would become obsolete. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We've got 2012 Summer Olympics already. Plans are in the works for the Diamond Jubilee, so I figured it was okay to start an article about it now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The death of one person, isn't likely to cancel the 2012 Olympics. The death of one 'particular' person, would cancel the Diamond Jubilee. Ahh, what the heck, the last I've heard, Liz #2 is still in robust health. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't one of the beauties of Wikipedia the ability to change it as events occur? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Aww, might this be an example of 'creeping republicanism'? Jagislaqroo (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

The lead reads " Queen Victoria in 1897 is the only other monarch in Britain's,[1] Canada's,[2] and a few other Commonwealth realms' histories to have celebrated a Diamond Jubilee."

Why not say "Queen Victoria is the only other monarch in the history of Great Britain and the Commonwealth to have celebrated Diamond Jubilee." Seems more straightforward. Not sure why we need to mention the Commonwealth at all. Has there been any monarch of the Commonwealth realms that was not also a monarch of Great Britain?

Also, to say "the only other monarch" is "crystalballing". Queen Elizabeth has not celebrated hers yet and thus "Queen Victoria is the only monarch....". I'll fix this.

--Richard S (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, countries are mentioned separately from Brtiain because those countries are separate from Britain. You were right, however, about the misleading implications that stemmed from the premature use of "other." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But I still don't understand why Canada is called out separately and why we use the locution "a few other Commonwealth realms' histories". Isn't Canada a member of the Commonwealth and why only "a few other Commonwealth realms"? Why not just say "in the history of Great Britain and the Commonwealth realms"? What distinctions are being drawn here that I am unaware of? If there is a distinction worth drawing, it might be worthwhile to make it more explicit to the reader as those of us who are not cognizant of the finer details of the Commonwealth might be confused. (Specially us 'murricans, ya know?) --Richard S (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom (which is what I assume you mean by "Great Britain") is a Commonwealth realm like all the others. Canada was "called out" for the same reason the UK was: there are refs specifically for both, and "a few other Commonwealth realms" was used because Victoria never reigned over the territories that now comprise Papua New Guinea and possibly the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu (because they were British protectorates during Victoria's reign). I suppose the statement should read: "...the only monarch in the histories of Britain, Canada, and most other Commonwealth realms." Either that or: "...the only monarch in the histories of most Commonwealth realms." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK... now I understand what you're saying. Some of the Commonwealth realms were something else during Victoria's reign. However, I think drawing this distinction leads to unnecessarily complicated prose which is unobvious to those who are not up on their British history (like me, for instance). I think a more straightforward locution would be "So far, Queen Victoria has been the only British monarch to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee." Short, sweet and to the point. After all, unless I'm mistaken, the only monarch of a Commonwealth realm is a British monarch. Right? --Richard S (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not right, unfortunately. The person who is sovereign may be the same in all the Commonwealth realms, but each realm has its own monarchy; the British monarch only reigns in Britain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

emblem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12518165 - emblem announced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.234.123 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Done.KnowIG (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Winner of Blue Peter contest

User:KnowIG, the edit summary of your last revert read: "[WP:BRD] applies to you as well. How is stating a name trival come on answer." Firstly, the onus is on you, as the person who made the contested edit, to convince others why it should be done. It can be assumed from your reverting that you feel strongly that the name and age of the Blue Peter contest winner should be included in the article; nowhere is there an explanation of why this should be. The information is trivial in the context of this article; the girl's identity is only tangentially related to the subject of the page and her age even more so. WP:ROC asks that we keep the content of articles focused. If you feel that Katherine Dewar, age 10, is such an important figure, why don't you start an article on the Blue Peter contest itself and mention the winner's name and age there? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats for showing complete incompetence. No one does a separte article on a competition of a TV show. So therefore there is no other place for this to go. Plus it is relavent, as a child designed this, and therefore if Hopkins designed it you would privlige them why shouldn't this child be privlidged. KnowIG (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't want another block for incivility, so please keep WP:NPA in mind. Now, you haven't answered the question: how is the girl's name and age relevant enough to the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II to warrant a place in this article? The name of the designer of the Canadian emblem isn't there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm seeing WIKI ownership off you are you sure you don't want to be blocked for that! It's unique. But hay you can't see that can ya. KnowIG (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you answer the question, please? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you read. FOr the third time you paying attension. A child designed it = unique situaiton. Relavent to the page therfore should be on. How about you argue that it's not. And lots more wiki policies say that should be on. Pages should not be created by ROC alone KnowIG (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Relevant to the page" is not the answer to the question "how is it relevant to the page?" Point to which Wikipedia policies say the winner's name and age should be included. The fact that the preceeding sentence in the article already outlines that Blue Peter is a children's programme would tend to lead readers to believe that the winner of the Blue Peter contest is a child. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requests that articles remain focused and on the subject. The addition of her name does not change this. KnowIG (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does indeed request that articles remain focused on their subject. That's precisely why the name and age of the Blue Peter contest winner isn't needed here; as I said already, the girl's name is tangential - relevant only through her winning the contest to design the emblem for the jubilee in Britain - and her age even more so - relevant only through being the age of the girl who won the contest to design the emblem for the jubilee in Britain. She's not notable in her own right and, as I've also already said, the name of the designer of the Canadian emblem isn't included. Why, then, is Katherine Dewar's? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated above notable as she is the designer. Unique cause she is a child and finally does not in any way shape or form make the article suddenly off topic. So it should be there end of. KnowIG (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she is a child is irrelevant to this discussion; readers know the winner is a child from the fact the article already makes clear that Blue Peter is a children's programme. The girl is notable for nothing other than the fact she won a Blue Peter contest. Her only relevance to this article is through the fact that she won a Blue Peter contest for the British emblem for the Diamond Jubilee. I still see no reason why a non-notable person whose identity is three times removed from the subject of this article warrants a place in it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But she's notable to the subject, and it's only you who's disagreeing. And the fact at no one else has touched it says it all. KnowIG (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean she's relevant to the subject. Only you say she is; but, again, "she's relevant" is not the answer to "how is she relevant?" As I said, her relevance is three times removed from the subject of this page: 1) the British emblem, 2) the Blue Peter contest, 3) the winner of the contest (and 4) her age). The fact that nobody else has "touched it" means nothing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks like your as bad as Britwatcher as in being unable to comprimise and come up with a problem and carry on with a rather pendantic line of questioning. Just leave it be. Does it detract from the article. Answer no. So on the question of detracting what is the problem. KnowIG (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no line of questioning; I asked a question and haven't yet received the answer. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, I don't see any reason to leave out that name: it's not against policy, and it's nice that they didn't go with a professional for the official emblem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see "it's nice" as being much of an argument for inclusion. Plus, it may not be against policy, but it is counter to WP:ROC's request that we keep article content focused on the subject of the article; the girl's name and age are quite distantly related to this article's focus. However, if more editors are okay with it than not, then it stays. I'm not going to push this issue to MedCab or anything! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Other Realms

So far the article details the jubilee in Canada and the UK... what's happening in Her Majesty's other Realms and Territories? (Especially Australia and New Zealand.) David (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Victoria's Diamond Jubilee

Okay, Miesianiacal has asked me to take this edit to the talk page. The current version states "Queen Victoria in 1897 is thus far the only monarch in the histories of Britain, Canada, and a few other Commonwealth realms to have celebrated a Diamond Jubilee." Two things about this are problematic for me: the only country that Victoria served as monarch of for 60 years was the UK. To say that she was monarch of any country for 60 years is incorrect. However, "in the histories of Britain, Canada, and a few other Commonwealth realms" is a bit ambiguous for my liking – several other rulers – not British – have served for more than 60 years "in the history" of Britain. I propose a change to "Queen Victoria is the only British monarch to have celebrated a Diamond Jubilee, marked in 1897." IgnorantArmies 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question doesn't say Victoria is the only monarch in British history to have reigned for 60 years, nor does it say she was monarch of Canada for 60 years; it says she's the only to have celebrated a diamond jubilee. I can't say whether or not any other diamond jubilee was actually marked in British history; so, that part of the lead could perhaps be modified. But, the sources are pretty clear that Victoria's is the only diamond jubilee Canadians have thus far observed: "Queen Elizabeth... is the second sovereign to reach this mark in Canadian history, the other being The Queen's great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, in 1897."[1] "Celebrating the Diamond Jubilee – the only Diamond Jubilee since Queen Victoria's in 1897 – will establish a historical legacy for Canadians..."[2] "This will be only the second time Canadians will celebrate a Diamond Jubilee: the first was Queen Victoria's in 1897."[3]

Is it right to have an article about this?

A lot could happen to an 85 year old woman between now and the 60 years anniversary of her accession. Maybe we ought to create the article if and when it goes ahead. For all we know she could die. I hope she doesnt but you never know --Thanks, Hadseys 23:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well there is only a few months left to the ceremony, and if someone was curious about it this is a good page to look at for info on it. So even though it has not happened yet, i think it should be kept.MilkStraw532 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As a lot is being officially planned for the event, even if it has to be cancelled there should still be an article! David (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This question will be a mute point in just over 3 months time anyways. It's also being discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2011. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, there's going to be a Diamond Jubilee Trust with all, or most, of the Commonwealth Realms joining in. David (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

POV mentions

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II&diff=458652060&oldid=458627935 this] was repeatedly added without reason despite the removal being explained. It is pov to mention only the anglo-perspectives and brush through theothers. Why does canada get special mention and the carib. etc get brushed by? the world is not neatly packaged into an anglo worldview and thats pov.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It would seem you're seeing bias where there is none and how you're seeing it makes little sense; why do you single out Canada (a bilingual country) as getting "anglo" "special mention" while giving Britain a free pass? The fact is, Canada and Britain are mentioned because they're the only two that have sources to affirm the statement. If you can find a reliable source outlining that the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria was celebrated in any Caribbean realm in which the present queen's diamond jubilee will be celebrated next year, please add the information into the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Britian gets mentions because that is the seat of the monarchy. THe other realms are ignored, so why then does a european-majority country get spcial prominence when other realsm are excluded? Sources alone dont make npov, in order to be npov then it needs to be balances and researched not to just add what happens to be found. Victoria's info is not relevant here, and if thats the the reason then it has even less relevance here.Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Britain is not the seat of any monarchy besides Britain's; the other realms are independent countries. Victoria's jubilee is relevant since it's the last diamond jubilee to have taken place in the Empire and later Commonwealth realms. What do you think would be "less POV" wording? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest info on events tours etc

From the BBC today:

BBC News

David (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian mentions India... any news of any other celebrations there? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Additions to New Zealand websites

Regarding this edit: There is nothing notable about these additions of content to websites; they are not monuments or events, activities or opinions about the jubilee and have attracted next to no attention. This is likely why a blog is used as the supporting cite. Blogs do not meet WP:RS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did think about this before I added them. I believe that they are notable because it is the official encyclopaedia of the New Zealand government. And these websites are part of the New Zealand governments celebration. They were only published a few hours ago so no time for there to attract attention. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage link (the first cite) lists them. This is because the new websites are part of the official NZ government celebration. Yes, the link to the blog is not notable, but the blog is the blog of the government department’s encyclopaedia. However, the MCH link, and links to each separate page should be enough to keep the material here. Up to what everyone else here thinks. I won’t revert any more :) Brian | (Talk)