Talk:State visit by Elizabeth II to the Republic of Ireland

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)

No, the correct form of address is either "Her Majesty" or "the Queen", once it has been establised who she is and what she does (this in done in the lede). Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 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)

On that last, no, perhaps not. But we do say "the President" and it works fine, it just being a description of the job the bloke does, which is similar to the queen's position. Nor are we in this article calling her "Mrs Windsor" (or whateverthehell) or Queen Elizabeth (apart from the first one where it establishes who she is). So these are pretty weak arguments, as are bringing historical figures like Henry Whoever ... just weak, irrelevant, time-wasting. My point remains that "the Queen" is a very commonly used way to refer to her, Compare where the pussy cat pussy cat has been: "I've been up to London to visit the Queen"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth II"/"I've been up to London to visit Queen Elizabeth II"/etc. They are all garbage in normal speech except "the Queen", and to pretend to not notice or understand that is ... bizarre. You really have to ask yourself if you want a decent article that makes sense when you read it, or one which follows some weird rule you've got in your head about how it should sound. And yes, it does say "the Queen" far too often now; despite efforts from some of us to word it into something better. This clearly needs more work. But just remember that before that it just said "Elizabeth II" far too often instead, so it was previously laughably bad instead of just a bit feeble as it now is. Now, do please enjoy your fun, as I really can't be arsed with this one any more. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It may have escaped people's notice that while "the Queen" is correct while she is in Britain (and I assume Commonwealth states), but it is not correct while she is in Ireland. She is not the Irish monarch. O Fenian (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No she is not. Oddly, I think you will find that many editors are aware of this. But if you write that the president of the USA is in London and then later say "the President had a nice cup of tea at my auntie's" you are not suggesting that he is the president of the UK. Or maybe you would be? Another stupid argument, but, sorry, I said I was going to keep away from here so I reckon I really should. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Your exact words were "Compare where the pussy cat pussy cat has been: "I've been up to London to visit the Queen"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth"/"I've been up to London to visit Elizabeth II"/"I've been up to London to visit Queen Elizabeth II"/etc. They are all garbage in normal speech except "the Queen",". All of those are only relevant to when she is in London, so it would appear it is your argument that is stupid if anyone's. O Fenian (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Another reason to object to the usage "Queen Elizabeth II" is that, while she is Queen Elizabeth II of England and Wales, she is Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 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)

If you'd bothered to read past the first line you'd see how this whole thing has been timed to coincide with her visit. ~Asarlaí 09:49, 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)

I'd say that it does. It may be the aftermath of The Troubles, but IMHO the article does fall under the remit of the AE ruling. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes youre right, but its on content disputes, im not insisting on adding back what you reverted after my WP:Bold edit. Discussion should be tried first and its working. WP:AGF doesnt mean accusations of "stop disruptive eidting" where there i s non.(Lihaas (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

?? I've not reverted anything. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to link this to Scottish independence

I take a dim view of edits like this which attempt to draw a link between the irrelevant SNP electoral victory, its promise for Scottish independence, and this visit. They are totally unrelated. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On the same point, I oppose linking this to Fianna Gael's electoral victory as well, at least in the structure of that edit (that the visit "follows" FG's win). This visit follows an invitation from Mary McAleese, not FG's victory. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair on the SNP stuff (unless we find an RS source), but i think the context of FG is relevant, b/c something under FF was never going to happen.

incidentally, not im NOT adding that back till consensus (if it emerges()(Lihaas (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

Censored??

Why was this REMOVED when sourced [23]?And the refs? [24](Lihaas (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

Read the edit summaries. DrKiernan (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Responses section not impartial

At the time of writing, the Responses section contains descriptions of objections to the visit and difficulties caused in Dublin by security restrictions. This documentation of the negative consequences of the visit needs to be balanced by an account of the welcome the Queen has received and of the assertions by various public figures, media, and members of the public of the positive significance of the visit. In addition, vox-pop interviews on RTÉ television revealed individuals who had neutral reactions or who didn't care about the visit one way or the other. Reactions in Ireland are more diverse than the present Responses section describes, and it merits expansion. — O'Dea (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hijacking?

There seem to be a lot of people pushing an Irish republican agenda here to the point where the page appears to have been hijacked, with all edits that attempt to restore non-POV removed almost instantly. --Wessexboy (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)