User talk:Miesianiacal/April-September 2015

Perth Agreement

I see you undid my changes on Perth Agreement announcing it had been implemented on the basis that it was New Zealand only, obviously. Whilst the reference I gave was NZ the time of change has to be simultaneous across all 16 realms. There is now news coverage that Australia has implemented the change from the same point and I have no doubt the changes will be in the public arena across the other realms in coming hours. 122.58.84.102 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We need reliable sources for each realm that passed its own legislation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mies.: It is puzzling that Canada has not yet put online the commencement proclamation, or if it has, have you a link? Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't. But, I think the Canadian government typically isn't as quick to post orders in council online as other countries are. We may have to wait for the next release of the Canada Gazette. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The last Canada Gazette was issued 28 March. But, the Gazette requires submissions for publication be made six days in advance of the next issue. So, the order in council commencing the Succession to the Throne Act wouldn't have made it into the 28 March issue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, will have to wait for it. Meantime, is there anything to show, when such a proclamation is made, which time zone is taken to be operative, in the absence of any time specified in it? If the normal rule is followed, that a day begins as from midnight, would that be successive from zone to zone, or is it determined by the local law of the province or territory? It seems to me of no importance in itself, but may help to rebut misguided claims from elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. I've never seen a Canadian law that stated what hour, let alone anything about a time zone, it came into effect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

When a day begins and ends can be of great importance, for example, when something is prohibited, or when a tax begins, but the Canadian parliament's website makes no mention of the successive time zones, when midnight occurs hours earlier in the east than in the west.[1]. That may be because federal legislation is taken as operating in conjunction with the local time zone which the local legislature has prescribed: Official times across Canada[2] [3] There are links to local legislation in Time in Canada. So it might be said that the Canadian act came into effect 'across Canada' when 26 March began in the westernmost zone of Canada. Qexigator (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be worse than I thought. "Public Acts of Parliament and their enactment proclamations" are published only in part III of the Canada Gazette and there's only been one part III issued so far this year. Thus, I've no idea when the next one will come out (even assuming it contains the enactment proclamation for the Succession to the Throne Act 2013). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Definite article

What happened here? --John (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what additional information you're seeking, exactly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am asking you to provide the rationale for your edit. --John (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The proper form of address of a baron is "the Lord [X]". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In a Wikipedia article? --John (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Everywhere. Unless there's a rule I've not been made aware of. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Is it a MoS thing? Could you point me to the section that recommends this? I don't think I have come across it before. --John (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External to Wikipedia. "Non-Scottish barons are styled The Right Honourable The Lord [Barony]." (Quoted from and source available at Baron#Style of address.) Is there a MoS section that directs the elimination of the definite article in Wikipedia? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Second grandchild

Would you mind explain why Princess Charlotte of Cambridge isn't the second grandchild of the Prince of Wales? [4] Would you please explain in clearer language in your edit summaries? 12:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say she wasn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Privy Council and Cabinet

I'm not quite understanding why you reverted my edit. Your edit summary displays the same reasoning I provided for separating the two bodies, that being Cabinet and the Privy Council. By having the former bracketed beside the latter, it makes it seem as though they are the same or interchangeable - specifically it indicates that "cabinet" is the common use term for privy council. That is untrue. As you noted, "cabinet is a committee of the privy council". So why do you think it makes sense to equate the two as interchangeable terms? Nations United (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Would appreciate a response. Nations United (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for forgetting about this.

I don't read the arrangement as you do, especially as the two terms in the infobox link to different articles. Further, even if "cabinet" were the common way to refer to the Privy Council, that isn't helpful in an enyclopædia; it should be clear the Cabinet is different to the Privy Council. Would filling it out to say "chairman of the Cabinet" help? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is quite puzzling, as your reasoning for the status quo is, at least how I am understanding it, exactly the same as my reasoning for change. I could copy and paste what you just wrote above to further my own position. I, too, want to make clear that Cabinet is different to the Privy Council, which is why in my edit I separated the two. The current version, which you reverted back to when you undid my edit, puts them right beside each other. This, to me, clearly makes it seem as though they are being equated as interchangeable terms. I do not believe cabinet is the common way to refer to the Privy Council. What I said is that the current status quo version, which brackets "cabinet" right beside "Queen's Privy Council for Canada" makes it appear as though the former term is the common term for the latter, which is a problem. That's why I want to separate the two.

Also, I'm not sure what you are suggesting with "Chairman of the Cabinet". Could you clarify that? Nations United (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I get that we're out to achieve the same end. I just, as I said, don't see what's there now the way you apparently do; putting "Cabinet" in brackets says to me the Cabinet is the more specific subset of the Privy Council to which the prime minister belongs. Further, your arrangement, with the Cabinet shown above the Privy Council, implied the former takes precedence over the latter and the Privy Council and Cabinet are entirely separate, which, of course, they are not.

What I suggested was adding to the current infobox the words "chairman of" directly before "Cabinet", still within the brackets. I'll edit the page to show. Feel free to revert if you don't approve. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I understand what you're saying. Though I have to say I'm not sure why you would think bracketing something would imply it's a subsection. That doesn't strike me as common practice. Whenever I bracket something, it's to denote interchangeability or simplicity to promote common usage. A subsection in my mind has one term under and indented from the main term.

Also, I appreciate the attempt at compromise, but I believe putting "chairman of" in front of "Cabinet" in the brackets only makes the problem worse. If your intention is to make sure Cabinet is seen as a subset of the Privy Council - which is absolutely true - that kind of gets lost with your addition of the PM's status in the Cabinet. It now looks completely out of place. Further, specifying the PM's role as chairman does not fit with what that section of the infobox is made for. In other words, the prime minister is indeed a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Canadian Cabinet, but he is not a member of: "chairman of the Cabinet". Do you see why that looks kind of awkward?

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, don't you think it would just be easier to separate the two? I know the Cabinet is part of the Privy Council, but that's not really relevant or necessary to denote in this infobox section. All readers want to know is what groups/institutions the PM is a part of. If we separate Cabinet from Privy Council, that information is clearly delivered without the chance of ambiguity that I myself was caught in when I read the infobox. If you're concerned with the precedence of the groups, I'm completely fine with listing the Privy Council first. It probably does have precedence anyways. Nations United (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I take it from your silence that you are now okay with this proposal? I'm hoping we won't have to discuss this for too much longer considering this is such a small change. Nations United (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

How about what I've done at the article now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That works too. Thanks for your consideration on this.

Best, Nations United (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Quote

I've restored your version of the quote as a good faith measure. Please provide a justification your version over the full version on the talk page and we'll see what other editors say. AnonAnnu (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Governor Generals of Canada images

If the images of Jules Léger, Ray Hnatyshyn, and Roméo LeBlanc are available on their Wikipedia pages, then why can't they be used on the GG page? If their already on Wikipedia, doesn't that make the images Free Use content? Brucejoel99 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question succinctly: No. Please read WP:NFC and click through to the image file pages for those portraits and look for their copyright status and the words "non-free". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Order of St John

Thanks for helping to clean up the Most Venerable Order of St John page. I'm curious about your edits of the Lord Priors list, though. You've changed all the links like Samuel Vestey, 3rd Baron Vestey to be more like The Lord Vestey (Samuel Vestey). I'm not super familiar with the manual of style on this, but it seems unnecessarily clunky. Is that the official way they're supposed to be piped? Thanks again and have a great day.--dave-- 14:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New Guinea

Thanks for cleaning up my quick drive-by edit of the New Guinea article to reflect the new succession law; I wonder if this outdated info is still lurking on other "Monarchy of..." pages of Commonwealth Realms, seeing as I believe much of the text on all of them is cut and paste from some original. Quick question for you on the wording: you wrote that the law "...lays out the rules that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic and must be in communion with the Church of England." Is this not redudant? If someone is in communion with the Church of England, doesn't that mean that, by definition, they are not Roman Catholic? Is this redundancy built into the law itself? --Jfruh (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Governors General

Hello. I noticed that you undid the capitalisations I did at these articles. Why did you do that, given that standard practice is to have a “The” with a capital “T”?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the practice on Wikipedia. Hence, we don't see "The Queen", it's "the Queen". There was a discussion about this (the infoboxes for Canadian governors general specifically) on a talk page some time back and the consensus was to use the lower case "t". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And, may I ask, what makes infoboxes of Canadian Governors General so special, contrary to any other infobox of any other peer, that they have their own specific consensus? Why does the standard practice for peers not apply?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a loaded question. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... when all other articles on peers use this practice, having a special consensus for peers who also were Governors General of Canada looks wrong to me. Does the peer-wide consensus fall below the GGC-wide consensus?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Where and when was this "peer-wide consensus" set?

Also, there's MOS:JOBTITLES, Talk:John Buchan#Infobox, cap Ts, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 8#Capital letters. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. A last question and I will leave: does this consensus not apply for Governors General before the Earl of Minto?--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it would. I suppose those articles just haven't had much attention for a long while.

I do believe the MoS or the Peerage and Baronetage Project should say something specifically about this, so it's clear and in the open, whatever the "rule" is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

IDK why this is difficult, but "members of the Commons" clearly in that context requires it to be capitalised, as it is referring to the (one and only) institution. No wiki policy overrides that. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't start your combativeness with me, Fry; please. I directed you to the relevant MoS section. According to it, "commons" is capitalised when part of the full title "the House of Commons", but not when alone: "the commons", exactly as "university" is capitalised when part of the full title "the University of Toronto", but not when alone: "the university". If you sincerely have a problem with that, take it up at the MoS page and get it changed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with it because it's wrong. There is only one House of Commons in Canada, and therefore it becomes a subject in "Members of the Commons", whereas "members of the commons" would be equivalent to "members of the universities". It makes it a variable and it is incorrect. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a false comparison. "The commons", in this case, is not plural. Hence, it is akin to the singular "the university"; at least, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi. I'm looking for help in writing Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon‎. I was born many years after the event, but from what i can gather, the Ratcliffe-Gordon disappearance is second only to the Beaumont children disappearance for South Australians and ranks alongside the Beaumonts and the Disappearance of Eloise Worledge for Australian child crime history. Paul Austin (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GG-OC.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GG-OC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Princess vs The Princess and such

Would you care to explain now what your problem is with proper royal titles? As children of the sovereign or direct-in line to the throne, surely you know the legal difference between being a Prince Andrew and being The Prince Andrew. It seems everything I do you have to nitpick. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think there's a problem, you should take your concerns to Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies to seek consensus to change the internal practice of writing the names and titles of royal persons.

Also, don't delete maintenance tags. You said there was a source, so, it shouldn't be too hard to provide it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not available to me any longer. I don't appreciate you suggesting I am lying. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No one made any such suggestion. If you don't have a source, then, how can we keep the info? WP:V still applies. Can you not recall maybe the title of the work and search from there? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I scanned through two old newsreels of the coronation, but, couldn't see the standard anywhere, just the British one. Google isn't helping, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I was in a group regarding the Monarchy on Facebook. I had posted my photos of the banners used at the Queen's coronation for the interest of the other members. Some time later, another member had posted pages from some booklet at the time of both coronations. At the time of King George VI, the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom was broken into it's 3 constituent parts (England, Scotland and Ireland) and used as individual banners, with the banners for Canada, Australia and New Zealand also present. At the coronation of Elizabeth II, the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom proper was used, along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which my photos corroborate). There were also banners for several other realms, I can't remember them all but Pakistan was one (in that case, it was the Pakistani Flag in 3:4 proportion instead of a banner of arms). That group no longer exists and I did not remember until I had returned to the article to edit it recently. I had hoped that I had saved copies of the booklet, I looked in my albums but can not find it. It is extremely regrettable, and I can't find copies in a similar Google search. It happened though, I saw it. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the tag notifies that a citation is needed. Maybe someone else will see it and be able to provide a source, if neither of us comes across one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dominic Agostino

A journalist happening to be the first person to reveal a known fact on the public record is not the same thing as an "unconfirmed allegation" — Dalton McGuinty even made an explicit reference to Agostino's male partner right in his eulogy at the funeral, so his sexuality was not an unconfirmed thing, but a known and confirmed fact about which I will brook no further dispute. And a person having come out as LGBT in their own words is only a precondition in a WP:BLP — if the person is dead and other biographical sources have revealed more about their sexuality than they had ever personally revealed about themselves in life, then those sources are sufficient. Liberace and Richard Hatfield never officially came out as gay on the public record during their lifetimes either, but their sexualities aren't in dispute. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel Wikipedia policies don't apply to you, that isn't my problem. Though, I do hope you'll see that WP:V certainly applies here. Saying a journalist said something and providing the source affirming the journalist said as much is fine. Saying what she said is a fact just because she said it is not fine, especially when it comes to someone's personal identity, and even more especially when the subject is no longer able to speak for himself. If McGuinty did indeed refer to Agostino's partner, that's great (why isn't there no mention of said partner in the article?). If that can be affirmed, Agostino at least falls into the LGBT politicians category. It still doesn't mean, though, Agostino identified as gay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am acting exactly in accordance with Wikipedia's policies — his sexuality is not an unverified claim, but a known fact about which there is no basis for dispute. The fact that it wasn't formally published on the record until Eleanor Brown's article hit the stands does not magically turn it into an "unconfirmed allegation" — she was simply the first person to actually report a known fact, which is not the same thing. And the only reason the partner isn't mentioned in the article is that I cannot find a reliable source which gives his name — he is still living today as far as I know, so his continuing privacy rights prevent us from publishing his name without a source, and there's no context in which he can be logically mentioned in the article without giving his name.

And again, a requirement that the person came out on the public record during their lifetime exists only for people who are still alive. For a dead person, biographical sources which reveal more about a person's sexuality than they had personally revealed during their lifetime are sufficient. And that is the policy on describing or categorizing people as LGBT, so I'm not acting even slightly outside of perfect accordance with policy. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's quite simple. Either you have a source for this "known fact" that Agostino identified as gay or you don't. Brown's piece only affirms what Brown thinks and she doesn't even call him "gay"; worse than try to disguise someone's opinion as fact, you've made misrepresentations of that someone's statements and tried to disguise those as fact.

I don't think the partner's name has to be known to have mention in the article of his existence.

The fact you keep reverting my simple copyedits only affirms you're not acting rationally. (And, on that note, I should point out you have made three reverts within twenty four hours.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If there were a dispute between sources because another reliable source had challenged Brown's article, then we would need a much higher degree of confirmation in five or six additional sources besides Brown. But if there's no dispute between reliable sources, then Brown's article is sufficient in and of itself — unless you're making the claim that she's an inherently unreliable journalist, which she's not. The only basis for challenging Brown would be another reliable source explicitly stating that she was wrong, and no such source exists — your desire for duplicate and triplicate and tentimesicate reconfirmation carries no weight, unless another reliable source has disputed her.

And the point is that you're not simply making purely neutral "copy edits" to the article — you're actively misrepresenting a known fact about his life based on a personal WP:POV disagreement with the validity of a perfectly valid source, and adding a bit of copyediting alongside that. That's not the same thing as pure copyediting, and it doesn't prove that I'm acting "irrationally".

You're right, the fact that hundreds of people in Hamilton and Toronto have personal knowledge doesn't carry any weight under Wikipedia's verifiability rules in and of itself, which is why his sexuality couldn't be addressed in the article until Brown's article hit the stands. But the fact that you personally lack the same personal knowledge doesn't carry any higher weight either, and thus doesn't invalidate Brown's article in and of itself — for our article to claim that Brown was or might have been wrong, what it would take is another WP:RS explicitly stating that she was wrong, not your own reluctance to accept the fact that she wasn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You are being utterly ridiculous. These are copy edits. Don't pretend otherwise.

You keep relying on one source to affirm Agostino identified as gay. Aside from the fact the source article was written by someone who isn't Agostino, the article doesn't say in any way whatsoever that he identified as gay. So, you're going to need to find something else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Queen's Medal for Champion Shot

I was going to ask you to take a critical look at my rewrite of Queen's Medal for Champion Shots, particularly the rank abbreviations I used in the tables, but clearly you're already at it.
FYI, a name change to Queen's Medal for Champion Shot was requested since I couldn't do it myself - there's a redirect page obstructing a simple move.
I'm done with the Canadian medal now, so over to you. A thank you would have been nice, though...
André Kritzinger (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bolding of alternative names

I noticed you have been removing the bolding of alternative names in lead paragraphs. Has the practice of using boldface for alternative names been dropped? According to MOS:BOLD, bolding is "often" used for synonyms. I seem to remember this has especially been true for names that are targets of redirects, e.g., Salle des Capucines in the article Palais Garnier. Personally, I don't mind if it is not bolded, but I don't think it should be italicized. It was certainly not italicized in the English source where I found it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary at Paris Opera, so you don't need to respond. I think I now understand your intentions, and I agree there were too many names in bold. Probably the confusion for the Palais Garnier article is that the name of the company is often used as the name of the house. It's possibly better to consider putting some of those names in bold in the article on the company, but not the opera house. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Thanks for catching that. I'd assumed that your version I reverted to didn't have that problem. My bad for not checking. Dpmuk (talk)

No worries. There's a lot of edits happening. I suspect it's only going to get worse! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be edit-warring against consensus on this article, and have now reached 3RR. TFD (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You don't seem to understand how consensus works and/or missed my remark at the talk page about consensus on this particular matter. I repeated it there in direct reply to your last comment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

Hi Miesianiacal, I note you reverted my edit removing the link to the WP:WPNZ relating to Charles, Prince of Wales. The article is of no particular interest to this project, regardless of him being an heir to the throne. Yes, we do have articles linking to him but beyond that nothing but a passing interest. Also, if you start adding every random country from the Commonwealth to the article, the project list would become silly. I will refrain from changing the edit for a couple of days in case there is some pressing need to retain the link. NealeFamily (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I find it hard to believe the article is of no relevance to the project. Bernard Fergusson, Baron Ballantrae—a long dead, British born, former governor-general—is relevant, but, the current heir apparent to New Zealand's throne is not? And I don't see any objection to numerous Wikiprojects at Talk:Elizabeth II. I can see how every member of the Royal Family needn't be part of the project. But, the monarch and at least the first direct heir should be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Miesianiacal. As you say some are more relevant than others. We had over 7,000 articles added to our project by a bot. I am in the process of weeding them. The Queen is relevant in terms of the project as our objective is cover all subjects closely related to New Zealand, including its history, geography, people, biodiversity, and many other topics. For instance the Queen is closely associated to our Governance, but her potential successors are not yet. If Charles were to become King, then we would add him or if there was some event in his life that the had a direct link to us.NealeFamily (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria must be met for a page to be part of WP:NZ (even as low importance) or how you became the one to undertake the daunting task of sifting through 7,000 articles to decide what stays and what goes, but, I suppose it isn't really my business. I removed it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Unless my thinking is challenged I will not learn so I appreciate your thoughful comments. Regards NealeFamily (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Speech from the throne

You appear to be an extremely experienced editor, so you can surely not be unaware of the principle that information we want to include in articles must be sourceable, and that failure to provide sources when asked will result in removal of that information. Your actions on this article are absolutely incomprehensible to me. For all I know there may be sources confirming that information, but I can't find any, and if you can't either, then it needs to be removed from the article (or at least marked with a citation needed tag, but since you won't allow that for information appearing in the lead, that doesn't seem to be an option here). I just can't understand why you keep restoring it. Or why you keep changing "British tradition" to just "tradition", when the source very clearly refers specifically to the United Kingdom parliament and no other. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to say that unsourced material must be removed, unless it's in an article about a living person. It gets tagged, either with inline tags or with a section or article banner, depending on how much information lacks a source. There are whole articles that don't have sources; they aren't deleted; at least, not for years. Your 'cite needed' tags on Speech from the throne have been there for less than a month. The notices are there to alert anyone that a source is or sources are requested; it prompts both readers to take the information with a grain of salt and editors (including yourself) to seek citations.

The lede summarises the article. There's no policy (that I'm aware of) that states the lede cannot summarise information in the article body for which a cite has been requested.

And, lastly (and I don't know why I need to repeat this), with a contentious edit, the stable version of the article remains in place until a consensus is found in favour of an edit to it. Did you look at WP:BRD and WP:NOCON? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is mad. Unsourced material gets removed, you know that. BRD and NOCON have nothing to do with it. We have both looked for sources, we haven't found any. End of story, surely. I'm happy for the materials to remain with citation needed notices, but you won't allow that, since you remove the notices from the lead, where the information is most prominent and most likely to mislead people. So there really seems no alternative than to enforce basic Wikipedia policy and remove the unsourced stuff. You also fail to address my point about the removal of "British". British parliamentary tradition is not parliamentary tradition generally; when we have a source for something, we must stick essentially to what it says. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Point to the specific policy that states unsourced material must be removed. Once you've done that, nominate Template:Citation needed at WP:TFD so that useless (according to your logic) template can be purged. It is, after all, giving false instruction, apparently: "Except for contentious claims about living people, which should be immediately removed if not cited, there is no specific deadline for providing citations. Please do not delete information that you believe is correct solely because no one has provided a citation within an arbitrary time limit. If there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided."

The source is Canadian; it discusses parliamentary practice in the Canadian federal parliament. Canada is not part of Britain. The tradition is therefore not just British. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm happy for the information to be tagged rather than removed. But since you just remove the tags, removal seems the only option. I'll try one more time just tagging the information, but if you go ahead and remove the tags again (on the grounds of some absurd idea that information in the lead is exempt from being tagged, or whatever else you may think up) then removal will remain the only option. About the source - it is certainly discussing practice in the Canadian parliament, but as to the tradition of the sovereign being excluded from the lower house, it specifically talks about the UK parliament, does not say that it carries over to the Canadian parliament (presumably there will be other sources for that, if true), and certainly does not say that it carries over to parliaments generally, which is what we're implying if we omit any qualifying word like "British". W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK I see you've now added some more sources; that may make the text OK, I'll take a look some time. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I simply removed the tags once, nearly two weeks ago.

I never said everything in the lede is exempt from being tagged.

It doesn't say the tradition carried over to the Canadian parliament? the words "The Canadian Parliament was modelled on that of the United Kingdom" and "The Speech is therefore given in the Senate Chamber" says that is false. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It may easily be (and seems to be what the source is saying) that the Canadian parliament takes from the UK parliament merely the tradition that the speech is given in the upper house, not the tradition that the sovereign (or her representative, presumably) is barred from the lower house. And even if, the UK and Canadian parliaments are still only two of many. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

A few days ago, I was impressed by your compromise offer - Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the 12 other independent states & therefore, I've deemed it acceptable for the articles intro. If you can allow the UK's inclusion? then I can meet you halfway, by allowing Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other 12 independent states inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We must be careful not to declare the Rfc settled in favour of the compromise. Nick & the other fellow, have as much right to revert everything & holler no consensus, too. It's like Trackratte said, everyone must be on board. We can't afford any accusations of double-standard. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)