Jump to content

Talk:Monarchy of Jamaica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jamaican Royal Family)

Article purpose

[edit]

See Talk:Canadian Royal Family. This page is a WP:POINT violation by J.J. to protest the (ridiculous!) existence of that article. It ought t o be deleted. john k 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible you are right, so I've put it on AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 22:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistancy in article & Afd. GoodDay 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

I have moved the page back to Monarchy in Jamaica for consistency with all other similar articles. If this is not acceptable then all pages should be considered for a move together. TerriersFan 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we were kind of in the process of moving them all: Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy, and this was Jamaican monarchy. Neither GoodDay nor myself had got around to doing the others. So, I suggest this be put back to "Jamaican monarchy again." --G2bambino 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this has been discussed elsewhere, it would be a could idea to have included liks to that discussion in the initial move. At this point, please provide a link to the discussions here before attempting another move. The current title was the result of discussions in the AFD process for these pages, and the consensus then was that "monarchy in X" was the preferred pattern for the titles. Moves involving a range of articles ought to have the consensus of more than 2 or 3 editors, and each article sould have had a notice that the moves were being discussed before hand. Thanks for your patience, and willingness to allow other editors to participate before proceeding with further moves. - BillCJ 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the AFD discussion concluded that "Monarchy in X" was preferred for titles beyond this article; and, even then, only because it's what the other non-UK realm monarchy articles used. The others have changed, so it only seems logical that this one follow suit, as it did before.
As for previous discussion, User:GoodDay opened one each at Talk:Canadian monarchy, Talk:Australian monarchy, Talk:New Zealand monarchy. Afer some months there was no opposition to his proposal, so, with my prompting, he went ahead and made the moves. This, so far, hasn't proved contentious in the least. --G2bambino 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no discussion here and there should have been. When a batch move is proposed then it is better practice to raise a formal WP:RM proposal so an overview can be taken. TerriersFan 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, okay. It just didn't seem that moving this article would cause much issue as, fankly, few people actively edit it. --G2bambino 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few more related pages have been moved from Monarchy in xxx to xxx monarch (it's a gradual process). Therefore, this page should be changed (again) to Jamaican monarchy. GoodDay 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the main problem here is that this is the third title in six months for this page, and I think some of the other pages have had more than 3 renames. Also, while some discussion has taken place on one or two pages before the moves, the other pages are generally being moved without discussion. How often do we need to move thse pages? In my opinion, these pages have been moved too many times. I'm seriously considering requesting that these pages be move-protected to prevent another rash of barely-discussed moves. I'm pretty sure someone out there is going to object to "Jamaican Monarchy", if for no other reason than that fact the the Monarch doesn't even live there, and ditto for the other pages. We have redirects for a reason, so please, let's try discussing and choosing ONE title format, and stick with it this time! - BillCJ 18:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the other existing Monarchy in xxx pages have now been moved to xxx monarchy. Currently thus, this page is the lone exception. PS- I agree completely about the numerious movements, let's settle it. GoodDay 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to "settle" it is to have a unified (across the various articles) consensus, which doesn't exist as yet. If you don't do that, when the issue comes up again, you'll have no consesnus to rest on, and we'll have to go through this all over again. This move does not have my support, but I'm not stopping anyone from going ahead and moving the page either. I just don't believe this issue is "settled" in any way that would preclude another round of non-consensual moves. - BillCJ 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't one have a benign consensus? After all, as I said, the issue was raised at three of the most popular articles and not a single person commented, either way. They've since been moved, and still nobody has commented. I don't recall there ever being a guideline set up that we're somehow opposing by doing this, and, in truth, most of the "Monarchy of [country]" articles only started with that title because they followed suit from "Monarchy in Canada." I can't see there having been any discussion as to why "Monarchy in Canada" was titled as it was. In the end, they should all be the same: either "Monarchy of [country]" (which includes making "British monarchy" into "Monarchy in the United Kingdom") or "[Country] monarchy." There's no reason for them to be different. --G2bambino 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three times?? How many more "benign consensuses" are you going to have? It's not a consensus once someone objects. You can't have fiat decisions on one or two pages, and then claim consensus when someone objects on another page. As to there not having been discussions before for the previous moves, doesn't that "benign consensus" then prevent your moves now? - BillCJ 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it, then, your answer is "no." --G2bambino 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I'm just too fatigued to change them all back (thus another movement). PS- There's a discussion concerning Commonwealth realms at Wikipedia: WikiProject British Royalty, it sorta ties in here concerning Commonwealth realm equality. GoodDay 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why even think about changing them back? --G2bambino 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BillCJ - the set of articles need proper discussion by a WP:RM proposal. I am going out for a few hours and I am happy to raise one on my return. TerriersFan 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in truth, they're not a set; there's nothing that states they all must be titled the same, and, in fact, they never have all been titled the same. Discussion about moving Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia and Monarchy in New Zealand took place at their related talk pages, and the proposal was met with no opposition; so the move of those pages was valid. However, I see no problem with discussing making these articles into a set, of sorts, and deciding on a common, across the board, title format. --G2bambino 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it'll satisfy everyone, let's bring this to WP:RM, even though the article have already been moved. GoodDay 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; as long as it's about establishing a common title form and then moving what articles to where. --G2bambino 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

The collection of articles concerning the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms have always been, and continue to be uncommonly titled, having either a "Monarchy in [country]" or "[Country]ish/ian/etc. monarchy" format. This discussion regards deciding on a common format that all present and future realm monarchy articles should adhere to, and then making the appropriate changes.

I support the making of all article titles into a "[Country]ish/ian/etc. monarchy" format; it more consisely expresses that the article is about the monarchical insitution of that particular country, as opposed to a foreign body, which "Monarchy in [Country]" implies. --G2bambino 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep they should be "[Country]ish/ian/etc. monarchy" just like British monarchy, as the Commonwealth realms are of equal status. GoodDay 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out before, the "Demonym monarchy" form does overlook the objective observation that, all technicalities aside, the vast majority of the shared monarchy is British in nature DBD 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you support that all articles, including British monarchy, should be titled as "Monarchy in [country]"? --G2bambino 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Monarchy in Jamaica is just fine since it is both descriptive and neutral. Questions about the status of the monarchy are dealt with in the article but the title should be as NPOV and as non-contentious as possible. In answer to the question above; yes I should prefer the others to have this form. The British monarchy page is somewhat different because there is no contention as to its status. Having said that Monarchy in the United Kingdom could be argued to be slightly more accurate since the monarchy covers the UK, not just the three countries of Great Britain. TerriersFan 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Concur with TerriersFans. User:Barryob, it is poor form to move a page during a discussion, but I'm not going to move it back myself until the discussion is over, and a final name chosen. - BillCJ 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have moved it back since the move, in the middle of a discussion, is both procedurally wrong and caused confusion with the templates. I have protected the page from non-admin moves to stop this move warring. The closing admin will determine the ultimate name. TerriersFan 01:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hold up! This discussion, I thought, was first and foremost about deciding on a common title format for all the articles. So, perhaps we should vote first on which format to use. I'll open a poll; I probably should have done this at the beginning. Sorry. --G2bambino 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? --G2bambino 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contention as to its status so the arguments for a move are less weighty than for the other realms where the status is contentious. TerriersFan 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "contentious status." --G2bambino 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 1975 Australian constitutional crisis provides a flavour of one situation where the status of the monarchy, and the powers that could be exercised by the governor-general on the monarch's behalf, was contentious. TerriersFan 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I still don't understand. In what way did that make the status of the Australian Crown "contentious"? --G2bambino 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]

First, to decide on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms. Please state which of the following two styles you prefer for the titles.

By the way, what's the main objection to Jamaican monarchy? I'm not clear on this. GoodDay 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the arguments above it is simply not a used term. There are a miserable 10 8 Ghits for Jamaican monarchy, mostly from wikis here

TerriersFan 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, it don't look good for my proposals. GoodDay 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a pretty official reference to the Jamaican monarchy: [1]. --G2bambino 03:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the abjective form? GoodDay 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's an abjective? :) The adjective form would be X-ian Monarchy. Don't know about a prohibition of adjective forms in the naming conventions. - BillCJ 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the pages have to be moved back to Monarchy in xxx? What about the British monarchy article? That too? GoodDay 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that means the opposite. --G2bambino 21:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that's a 'yes' (concerning the non-British pages) - I'll start reversing the pages tommorow (Friday). GoodDay 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend that. Not until there's verification that their format somehow violates a Wikipedia policy. --G2bambino 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting 'verification' then, if there's any. GoodDay 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldv'e fixed that; I posted the above before reading BillCJ's post. From his findings it seems "[realm]ian/ish monarchy" is acceptible by WP standards.
What I glean from all of this is that people don't feel all sixteen articles should be titled the same way. That opens up a whole other can of worms. --G2bambino 22:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, tommorow (Friday) I'll revert my changes -- It's best to have the articles as they were before the protesting. GoodDay 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fine, except for Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy and New Zealand monarchy where you individually asked for input, and nobody objected. No reason to move those back again. --G2bambino 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. GoodDay 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not realise there was a discussion on the name of the page the only reason I moved it was to match the other articles but I do prefer Monarchy in realm title for all countries. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Vigeur. On Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy and New Zealand monarchy, they are included in this move poll, with Canada being specifically in the examples given. THe only possible exception stated was British monarchy, and I'm for moving it to Monarchy in the United Kingdom]] also, for consistency. - BillCJ 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not – that particular move has not been agreed. DBD 01:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chill :-), he's just expressing a view, the titles will be decided by the closing admin in due course, taking account of the balance of views. TerriersFan 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved back all the page to Monarchy in xxx except for the Canadian monarchy, Australian monarchy and New Zealand monarchy (as those articles are still under dispute). PS- we've yet to create Monarchy in the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu. GoodDay 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, they're not under dispute. The decision to move those individually was made after sought opinion was expressed and without controversy. ---- G2bambino (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A decision was made but they are now wrapped up in this broader poll. -- TerriersFan (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the point of this poll was to decide if all the articles should be of the same title. The decision seems to be: no. If there's to be no consistency, then each can be decided individually, as has already been done at those three articles. ---- G2bambino (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. The emerging consensus is that all the realms should be titled consistently with the possible exception of the British Monarchy. Just because things are not going as you would like is not a reason to splinter a perfectly reasonable poll. -- TerriersFan (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd best start discussing why there should be some bizzarre exception for the British monarchy article; as the poll stated, the decided format was to apply to all articles; it was only some participants who added on the extra special case for the British monarchy page. ---- G2bambino (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cetainly I wouldn't want the United Kingdom to be somehow seen as special. It should be treated the same as everywhere else. And 'British' is a much looser term than just 'from the United Kingdom'. -- Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would just be silly to have some articles with the realm monarchy title and others with the Monarchy in realm i favour the latter for all realms that inclues having a Monarchy in the United Kingdom page. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's seem 3 general opinons have emerged from this Poll 1)have 'all' articles as Monarchy in xxx 2)have all articles as Monarchy in xxx -except British monarchy and 3) Have each article decide for itself, Monarchy in xxx or xxx monarchy. That about right? -- GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, what is emerging is that all articles should be Monarchy in xxx except for the British for which a separate discussion is needed. I count it at 5-2 so far. -- TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (De-indent) I'm not where G2B gets the idea the 3 articles were exempt from the poll. the First line in the poll: First, to decide on the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms. Please state which of the following two styles you prefer for the titles. (Emphasis added.) You did not express any problems with the word all until after the results of the poll. So please, stop being disruptive, and allow the pages to be moved in line with the others. - -- BillCJ (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? What part of "all" are you not understanding? I set up the poll, so I apologize that it wasn't clear enough in its intent, but the point was that all articles be in one form or another. It seems they are not to all be in one form or another; hence, there's nothing to move the pages in line with. ---- G2bambino (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until this squabble is settled, my fingers are tied. I'm not gonna change articles, only to have them reverted -- make up your minds. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same or not the same?

[edit]

Let's then decide first of all whether all the articles should be the same or not be the same in terms of their title format; some have expressed a desire for the British monarchy article to be somehow set aside as a special case, others disagree with that; I am of the latter group. Whether "Monarchy in [realm]" or "[Realm]ian/ish monarchy" isn't of great importance to me (though I prefer the latter), but I believe whichever is used it should apply to each page; no exceptions. ---- G2bambino (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a consensus for all/no exceptions, now what do we want? Monarchy in xxx or xxx monarchy'. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya get the feeling, there's gonna be a rumpous at British monarchy? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Yes. But, I think there's ample notice of this discussion. I was just wondering if we'd let enough time pass to allow for people to weigh in. I might leave this until a week has passed: November 20. ---- G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RM requires five days which will have elapsed after 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (approx :-)) TerriersFan (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued below. — AjaxSmack 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion relocated

[edit]

Since this discussion now deals with the title format for all articles relating to the monarchies of the Commonwealth realms, this is not the best place for the discussion. (And since it's a policy decision and not a simple RM, the normal five-day "rule" for RMs need not apply.) I have copied it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty and posted links to it at several related pages so that it can gather wider input. The title of this article can then be decided based on the outcome. — AjaxSmack 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart move Ajax, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a policy decision? Related to what? --G2bambino (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:Jamaicadefenceforce.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica Labor Party Manifesto

[edit]

It is with hope that BillCJ will enlighten us as to why the governing Labour Party's pledge to replace the monarchy of Jamaica is "out of date". --Lawe (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that BillCJ has prefered to edit war. Disappointing. --Lawe (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The info you have been adding is out of date. Try to actually find current info, or at least rewrite the info that was there so it doesn't make false claims, such as saying Jamaica will be a republic by late 2008, which it still is not! Btw, it takes two to edit war, so you're as guilty as you think I am. Given the false claims the info was making, I considered you a vandal, or at least a POV pussher, and that's not edit warring to revert in such cases. - BillCJ (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really consider sources 'out of date' unless a more recent source contradicts or corrects them. In this case the info is perfectly verifiable as far as i can see. If there is a more up to date part of this history then consider adding that after the current text. The article does not say that 'Jamaica will be a republic by late 2008'. Please assume good faith when in discussion with other editors and have a read of WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism assumes an edit is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", a content dispute is not vandalism and the 3rr applies. --neon white talk 13:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your reasoning, Neon, I still disagree. The info gives the false impression that there is an active, ongoing discussion on Jamaica becoming a republic, but only quotes political speeches by three successive PMs. (I've spoken to Jamaicans on this issue, and as of a few months ago no legislation is pending.) Yes, it needs to have current info, but that's up to the person adding the info, not the one removing it. Never once in my reverts did I call Lawe a vandal, or even use that in my edit summarries. Rather I stated abouve that I felt he was either a vandal or a POV pusher, the latter of which can be seen by his edits. Either way, when an user with less than 1500 edits over the course of over 3 years reverts an editor with 36,000 edits in just over 2 years, with the edit summary "Returning information to article", without even acknowledging my reasons for removing it or bothering to discuss it at that time, I consider that acting in bad faith, whatever you want to label it. At no point since then has he added any info to the section newer than 2007. (The JLP Manisfesto dates from mid-to-late 2007.) Again, he was not even attempting to address the issues I raised in every edit summary but one - I hardly think "Evidence based editing required" counts, or is even understandable! I'll admit that I probably should have used edit tags rather than removed the whole section, but I only do those sorts of things for thoses acting in good faith, of which I had no evidence that he was even paying attention to my reasons for removal, hence bad faith. Hope this helps.
There is a statement at the bottom of the main text. It states: "In September 2003, the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, P.J. Patterson advocated making Jamaica into a republic by 2007." This ia a near-duplicate of the first line of the text, which also lead me to believe the user had know clue what he was doing. I didn't mention this in November when I removed the text, but this was part of the reason. I forgot about till just now, but that is still there. He made absolutely no attempt to integrate his text into what was already there. (Note that Patterson was PM in 2003, not the former PM at that time - I just noticed that now too!) From what he said above, I gather he got his text from another article. If so, then there needs to be something in the edit summary or on the talk page stating specifically where the text came from, in order to comply with WP polices. This is another reason I was disappointed when Lawe added his info: I had expected something more up to date, ie. something from the Parlimentry sessions this year, as the JLP took power in September 2007. That would prove this is a current issue, but there was nothing then, nor in any of the subsequent edits.
I'll try to take a good look at the added text tomorrow, and try to address my issues. I think you'll see the difference. Also, I'll try to do a search on the Jamaican papers to see if there is any legislation pending, and note that in the text either way. Political speeches and posturing are one thing, but if these politicians don't even try to propose legislation, then it really isn't the front burner issue the text was making it out to be. I'd also like to reorganize the text better, especially in adding a proper Lead, though that type of writing is not my specialty. All this assuming I have time - real life and 6,000 watchlisted articles don't leave a lot of time for in depth research, but it's obvious no one else is going to do it here! Again, such accuracy and research are the responsibility of the one adding the info, not the one removing it. - BillCJ (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BillCJ (1) Thank you for restoring the edits. (2) All personality related comments in the above will be ignored. (2) Your speaking to Jamaicans cannot be considered evidence as it is not verifiable. (3) There is no pending legislation, but the text can report what the governent policy was and is and it does not suggest "front burner issue" or anything indicating urgency and the rest of the article makes it obvious that a republic does not exist in Jamaica. (4) The edit has been moved to the bottom of the article, however the material is not a question of popularity but government policy. As govt policy, it should be returned to the introduction. What is your response? --Lawe (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:LEAD for why the Lead section is not an "introduction" as such. Leads are to introduce and summarize an article, not contain whole sections not covered elsewhere (or in this case, actually summarized elsewhere!) More than likely, I'll just rename that last section heading to something more appropriate than "Popularity". I'll get to that eventually. As to my conversations with Jamaicans, Original Research only appplies to the article itself. If and when someone actually finds what the current government's policy on the issue is, then that should be included in the article, with proper citations. Up to now, the section does not cover government policy per se, but the political statements of one PM who apparently did nothing on the issue at all, and of a then-MP and his party's political platform, but nothing since he became PM. So again, this isn't in any way current government "policy", as there are no sources here on current government policy (ie. since after Sept. 2007.) The fact that you belive it is policy explains why you've totally missed my point here all along. It's one thing for a politician to say they want something, but quite another to actually do something about making it so. Until they actually start doing something about it, it's not really anything but talk. And I don't see that as being "policy". - BillCJ (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see where exactly the article gives the impression that this "is an active, ongoing discussion on Jamaica becoming a republic" or that it is "government policy". With all due respect i think you are reading between the lines with this. The text merely states in a neutral manner what various PMs have said on the matter. Which is pretty important. As i have said you have not assumed good faith with this editor. We all do this from time to time and jump to wrong conclusions about editors but please remember to start by assuming that all editors are here to improve the encyclopedia and editors with less experience of policies and precedure sometimes make mistakes but are still acting in good faith. --neon white talk 17:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neon, it would be good if you'd address who your comments are meant for to avoid any ambiguity. I assume they are meant for me, but I'm also assuming good faith that you're not quite that one-sided to think I'm the only one at fault here, or that you've ignored everything I said to repeat the same things over again. Anyway, when I don't assume good faith, it's for a reason, and I've learned from exerience to trust my judgment on that. - BillCJ (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is talk of BillCJ relying upon his own experience and ability to detect bad faith in other editors and I reiterate that these comments will be ignored. Getting back to what is relevant, I notice that much of the sourcing in the final section "Popularity and current status" is sourced from British news sources. The Jamaican source is an opinion piece and rather ambigous in meaning and selectively quoted. One line is a BBC direct quote. Perhaps BillCJ would like to cast his eye over these sources and give his opinion? --115.128.6.186 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no evidence my previous opinons were valued, so I won't waste them here any more where they're supposedly ignored anyway. I'll put whatever I find directly into the article, and you can ignore them at will. - BillCJ (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only comments of a personal nature are ignored. --Lawe (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monarchy of Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senate

[edit]

Thanks, but one problem. How to understand the last paragraf about Senate? Why is that here? 130.185.150.88 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monarchy of Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monarchy of Jamaica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Jamaica&oldid=1248316035"