Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom/Archives/2006/December

Arguments
It seems that arguments for the monarchy have been littered with counter arguments and assumptions.

It seems to me that the "Arguments in favour of a republic" are actually just anti-monarchy arguments. Not one says what benefit a republic supposedly has, but all say what a monarchy supposedly is not. Shouldn't the section therefore be completely reworded? --gbambino 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree (wow!) --Lholden 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree - we need to stay true to reflecting primary and secondary sources and we need to watch out for creating original work. My perception is that Republicans (other than a few loud-mouths) are already fond of liberal, democratic constitutional monarchy and proud of Britain's role in shaping that.  They see a Republic as the next step and their arguments stem from that.  They don't bother so much talking about why a Republic is better than despotism, absolute monarchy, stalinist communism, or fascism - they talk about how it is an improvement over constitutional monarchy.  So I agree but also caution that such a restructuring should be accompanied by lots of citations and references.  In the monarchy section it might be fair to cite a bunch of the negative, royal-bashing, anarchistic sorts of groups and dicuss the unease that gives monarchists, particularly with the negative experiences of the english civil war and the IRA conflicts.  I drew heavily on a monarchist site to draft the original debate argument wherein this sentiment was certainly reflected - the feeling that some in the media are just loud mouth bashers.  I would definitely say monarchists seem to feel that there is some hooliganish system bashing that doesn't honour the traditions or value of the existing liberal democratic establishment for its good points. Sandwich Eater 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your're certainly correct, I guess Gavin's point is that the article should make light of the benefits republicans expect from a British republic in arguing for one. --Lholden 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I found this reference --> http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/index.htm. At the bottom there is a "benefits of a republic" section. One could reference the success of other republics but that is difficult, it arouses national pride and it is difficult to prove the structure of government has anything to do with the success or shortcomings of the USA, Ireland, France, Germany et cetera.  Sandwich Eater 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a "benefits" section. I propose Gavin could write a "basher" section on the monarchist side!  I was tempted to add that such a system might better support differentiation of the political parties in the UK more along the lines of ideals and less along social class lines, which I recall UK republicans claiming, but did not find a reference yet.Sandwich Eater 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Should the Monarchy argument section have arguments against A Republic and an elected head of state? Sandwich Eater 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that rather than conveying information on any current or historical republicanism movements in the United Kingdom, certain editors are attempting to use this article to push their political views.


 * It is not that the pro-monarchy section should have arguments against a republic but that other section should not be focusing on arguments for a republic. These editors should also be reminded that Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia, not a politics web-site; debating the pro's and con's of a current political issue is for websites which are designed for such.


 * If Unless one of the contributing editors' can justify the section's existance I am going to remove the section "Arguments_in_favour_of_constitutional_monarchy" and "Arguments_in_favour_of_a_republic", as they are conter to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.


 * Although I wonder do whether the entire article isn't at risk of deletion by a tribunal considering it to be one of the many "political billboard" articles which have srung up recently on Wikipedia. Canderra 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There are articles in encyclopedias regarding the conflicts between the 1800s issues between goldbacks and the silverbacks for example relating to currency. Those issues were contentious in their day, but can be reflected on with neutrality now. I would like to be able to go to an encyclopedic source to see a concise, non-polarized review of an issue. If both sides are able to keep it referenced to secondary sources and keep the point/counter-point balanced then it is neutral POV and not original work. I think it is valuable and helpful to be able to learn about something without having to go to partisan websites. I'll post a few examples here. Sandwich Eater 16:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out this example: Abortion_debate

If wikipedians can balance that they can balance anything! Sandwich Eater 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I had created a Request for Feedback on the original debate article and I believe I satisfied the one feedback provider who responded. His cautions were to aggressively require citations and avoid original work. Sandwich Eater 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be very strange if contemporary political debate was regarded as 'unencyclopedic' within Wikipedia. That said, the history section of this article needs to be expanded I think. --Lholden 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It quite simply is unencyclopedic to engage in political debate. Politics is by it's nature subjective, wheras the entire point of an encyclopedia is to present entirely objective facts. Stating when events in the debate occured and who they involved is fine but listing the pro's and con's of each side of the argument means that readers cannot be sure of the objectivity of the article. The Abortion Debate page is a perfect example of an article which belongs at politics.com.


 * I do find it amusing though to witness the amount of effort some people go to in order to present their POV on Wikipedia, if only they realised how few people actually read articles like this (who don't already have an unswayable POV) then they would realise their time would be a lot better spent joining a relevant political party and being political in the conventional way.


 * I had thought this article could objectively portray facts relating to the history of republicanism in the United Kingdom but if people are determined to turn it into a political debate page than I guess the article definatly belongs on the academic scrap-pile with the hundreds of other totally unencyclopedic "billboard" articles which inhabit the Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom Category (which appears below but for some reason won't link here).
 * It would have been nice to have heard your dissent during the merge proposal. We could have kept all of this on a separate page so that the history of the UK part would be separate from a page capturing current debate.  Anyway, I think it is nice to see both sides of a position discussed in a forum where both sides can edit it freely.  And the history of Republicanism in the UK is not the title.  The title of the article also implies that the future is discussed, and that is an inherently political topic.  Sandwich Eater 01:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with the above (unsigned comment). Any other encyclopedia would state the arguments of either side in a debate, and wouldn't be limited to a historic portrayl of the facts.
 * I also find it strange that if the above commenter thinks parts of this article are "unencyclopedic", the whole article should be deleted. --Lholden 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of an Elected Monarchy
This section violates the following two points from the original research guideline:


 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Please cite sources (as the other argument sections do) to rectify this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.9.235.135 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC).