Jump to content

Talk:Queen of Ghana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

[edit]

RACIST EXCLUSION OF THE ROYAL STYLE AND TITLE THAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE WARRIOR QUEEN YAA ASANTEWAA I OF GHANA.

PLEASE BE ADVISED TO THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO ASSERT THAT PLACING THE CORRECT ROYAL TITLE BY QUEEN YAA ASANTEWAA'S NAME IS VANDALISM THAT WE FIND YOUR ACCUSATIONS TO BE BOTH RACIST, AND DISCRIMINATORY. PLEASE STOP FROM DOING THIS OTHERWISE WE WILL MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT. THIS PERSON IS MISUSING THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. Traditional Honouring Solutions (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 August 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. For a mass move like this, a pretty good consensus should be formed in favor. Unfortunately, that is not what has occurred here, even after a relist and advertisement. The criteria for a double relist have not been met, and it is unlikely from my perspective that a consensus will likely form at this point. So, closing. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Article should focus on monarchy as a system of government, not merely about the title. Consistent with other modern Commonwealth monarchy articles. Also, the date of the creation of monarchy and the date of separate title being given are different. Peter Ormond 💬 03:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

(1) The phrase "Monarchy of Ghana" does appear in some sources.
(2) The monarchy was created on 6 March 1957, but she was granted the separate title on 27 July 1957. Peter Ormond 💬 04:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "Queen of Ghana appears in more sources.
  • Strong Oppose. For most of the listed articles the common name is 'Queen of X' and the phrase 'Monarchy of X' is either unknown or ambiguous. Note that the list of sources provided by google includes those about the medieval monarchy of Ghana, before the Commonwealth existed. Note also the talk page section above this one where an editor complains about the inherent racism of using the article title for the white colonial monarchy instead of the native one. Per WP:AT, article titles should be consistent, recognizable and use the common names. Also, note that all moves must be explicitly requested. This move request is malformed because the disambiguation page for Trinidad and the redirect for the thousand-year history of monarchy in Malta are not requested to be moved. There should be notifications at every article listed in the requested move. DrKay (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources about the Monarchy of Ghana are about the Commonwealth monarchy; it is clearly visible in the sources. And what about point (2) of Note 1? Ghana became a monarchy on 6 March 1957, but The Queen was not separately titled until 27 July 1957. And the editor above is saying about a monarch, who was of the Ashanti Empire, not Ghana, as it hadn't been formed then. It has been clarified by putting a hatnote on the top of the article. Also, I don't know how to fix this move as you have said, your help will be appreciated. Peter Ormond 💬 09:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explain then Yansané, p.126, where he talks about the "decentralized monarchy of Ghana, Mali, Osman Dan Fodio and Omar Tall Fulani empires".
Explain then why Bantu refers to a medieval monarchy: "Elmina (i.e. the country till recently called the Gold Coast) had any notable part in the glories of the medieval monarchy of Ghana".
Explain then the inclusion of Kingdoms of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ruling Monarchs from Ancient Times to the Present. Please provide a quote from this source.
Explain then the inclusion of Monumenta Juridica (published in 1874). How can a book published in 1874 mention the Commonwealth of Nations or the Queen?
There is only ONE instance of 'monarchy of Ghana' being used in the sense of this article: and that is a single speech given in 1960 by Lord Listowel when he said "By midnight tonight the Monarchy of Ghana will cease and a new Republic will be born". All the other google hits are about other things, i.e. kingdom of Ghana or Ghanaian traditional rulers. DrKay (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those monarchies were of Ghana's predecessor empires and not explicitly "of Ghana". Nevertheless, the article title could also be changed to Monarchy of Ghana (1957–1960), as The Queen had become monarch of Ghana on 6 March 1957, but wasn't separately titled until 27 July 1957. Peter Ormond 💬 10:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article on that subject already. DrKay (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was not. You created that just now. Don't use such tactics to prove me wrong. And you've redirected that to the Dominion article, whereas the correct, appropriate and accurate redirect would be to this article. Peter Ormond 💬 10:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I created a redirect just now. The article has existed for over a decade. Redirects are not articles. DrKay (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was of the Dominion, a sovereign state, whereas you redirected the Monarchy article, which is about a system of government. Peter Ormond 💬 10:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't redirected any articles. I think you mean 'created a redirect at the proposed target', which I had already deleted by the time you posted the above comment. DrKay (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that the phrase "Monarchy of Ghana" is there in Listowel's speech, and it existed from 1957 to 1960, and The Queen not being titled separately from Day 1, there should be no objection to moving the article to Monarchy of Ghana (1957–1960). Peter Ormond 💬 10:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Dominion article covers the system of government, e.g. "The British monarch remained head of state ... The following governors-general held office ... Nkrumah held office as prime minister (and head of government)." Per WP:CONTENTFORK, duplication of articles should be avoided. DrKay (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That information is relevant to this article. And you are due to comment on the most important fact that the date of creation of the monarchy and the date of separate title being given are different. Maybe because that's the biggest threat to your standpoint? Peter Ormond 💬 14:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just don't see the need to bludgeon the debate by responding to every unimportant comment. If you insist on a reply, she was queen of Ghana from independence onwards. She became queen of the dominion on 6 March 1957. DrKay (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an unimportant comment. Although, she was the monarch from independence, she was not titled separately until 27 July 1957. Peter Ormond 💬 14:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON: "making the same argument over and over": 'she was the monarch from independence, she was not titled separately until 27 July 1957', [1][2][3][4][5]. DrKay (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting like this. I repeated that until now because you didn't address the issue. Peter Ormond 💬 15:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BADGER: "The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer". DrKay (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convincing you to agree with me. I was bringing your attention to it. Peter Ormond 💬 15:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those three are ongoing and have had and will have male monarchs at some point. The pages in this nom all pertain to Queen Elizabeth only, and her official title was Queen of Ghana. Apples and corgis, two different topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. per GoodDay. --49.150.110.214 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC) This IP is a block evading sock puppet. DrKay (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. For Ghana, comparison of the two google searches demonstrates that the proposed article title is not the common name, and both Peter Ormond's google search at 04:45 11 August and the citations highlighted by DrKay at 10:08 11 August demonstrate that the proposed article title is not the primary topic. Ghana Empire is the primary topic (as also shown by pageviews). No citations or evidence for any of the other proposed article titles is presented, and at least two of them are clearly ambiguous as the proposed article titles are a disambiguation page in one case (Trinidad and Tobago) and a redirect to another topic in the other (Malta). Celia Homeford (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per discussion, particularly DrKay's analysis (EDIT: And the discussion of the post just below). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I hear the need to recognise previous monarchies, but the titles of these pages are not of just herself but the institution, especially seeing as the monarch will not always be female. Glad to see this brought to light by the poster AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AlbusWulfricDumbledore, do you realize that this title and others apply to past events: "...title held by Elizabeth II from 1957 to 1960 etc., and not for future rulers? You say "the titles of these pages are not of just herself" but, they are. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. please click on several of them, they are about Queen Elizabeth. And look at the section 'Former realms' on the Queen Liz template: {{Elizabeth II}}. Will change my comment to 'Strong Oppose' because others may have the same confusion about the scope of the pages as you and perhaps the nominator do. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Yes, I know the pages are of herself and that's why I have come up with this RM. The pages should focus on monarchy as system of Government in the realm, not just the title. Also, some realms at the template: {{Elizabeth II}} have the article title "Monarchy of X", except the ones listed above. The article titles of all these realms should be consistent, as they all followed the same monarchial system. Peter Ormond 💬 21:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I'm confused as to what's wrong with the title (the opening sentence says Queen of Ghana was her title), and this image from the page confirms her official office. This is solely about Elizabeth and not her predecessors or monarchs yet to come, and her title, Queen of Ghana, remains the historical title. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) She wasn't separately titled from Day 1 and (2) the articles have to be bring in line with other monarchy articles. Peter Ormond 💬 22:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't, the other monarchy titles pertain to monarchs before Elizabeth and those to come, both male and female. This page is about Elizabeth, and Queen seems the most apt descriptor as well as the official title. Wouldn't be opposed to adding the years though as Yaa Asantewaa has a valid claim to the title as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yaa Asantewaa ruled Ashanti Empire, not "Ghana". Peter Ormond 💬 23:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are kings of Ghana: Kingdom of Ghana, West African kingdoms: Ancient Ghana, Was Royal Succession in Ancient Ghana Matrilineal?, "the kings of Ghana were sometimes called 'the Lords of the Gold.'", "the western Sudan was rich in gold and was dominated by the king of Ghana.". This is just a selection of the many citations written about the [real] monarchy of Ghana. Neither of the queens is the primary topic for monarchy of Ghana. The primary topic is the ancient monarchy of Ghana. To be honest, I'm beginning to agree with User:Traditional Honouring Solutions above: this looks rather racist. I don't see why a temporary single white woman who lived in a far off land and had no power at all should be given priority for the article title 'monarchy of Ghana' over an African empire that existed for 800 years. It looks like white bias. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Clarified. 12:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the page: "27 July 1957 – 1 July 1960: Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Ghana and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" with sources. Racist, non-racist, bias, has nothing to do with it, Queen Elizabeth held the title 'Queen of Ghana' as she held the other titles. It's called "history". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already said in an above discussion that it could also be changed to Monarchy of Ghana (1957–1960). Peter Ormond 💬 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 7 June 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. It's still unclear whether moving these to "Monarchy" is really an improvement. Little to nothing has changed since the previous RM on this. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– This article is about the monarchy rather than the queen herself. Interstellarity (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...for Move #5, an alt proposal: Queen of Malta should be moved to Monarchy of Malta (1964–1974) — because "Monarchy of Malta" redirects to "List of monarchs of Malta".
...for Move #11, an alt proposal: Queen of Trinidad and Tobago should be moved to Monarchy of Trinidad and Tobago (1962–1976) — because the proposed title "Monarch of Trinidad and Tobago" is already a dab page.
This makes Move #12 unnecessary, so Oppose Move #12 (i.e. keep the T&T dab page where it is).
...(edit:) for Move #1, an alt proposal: Queen of Ghana should be moved to Monarchy of Ghana (1957–1960) — because it doesn't seem like there's a primary topic for the title of "Monarchy of Ghana", per other editors below.
...(edit:) and I'm neutral on Move #7 (the Queen of Rhodesia move) per other editors below.
But, other than that — support all per nom. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the 2021 move attempt (see above), especially DrKay's comment. These pages are about Queen Elizabeth II and no other Monarch, so 'Queen of...' is perfectly fine. A ping to all of the 2021 participants might find something new to hang a crown on and, if not, will hopefully reaffirm the common sense decision, so please do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose all. For Ghana, comparison of the two google searches in the previous requested move demonstrated that the proposed article title is not the common name, and both Peter Ormond's google search at 04:45 11 August 2021 and the citations highlighted by DrKay at 10:08 11 August 2021 demonstrate that the proposed article title is not the primary topic. Ghana Empire is the primary topic (as also shown by pageviews). No citations or evidence for any of the other proposed article titles is presented, and at least two of them are clearly ambiguous as the proposed article titles are a disambiguation page in one case (Trinidad and Tobago) and a redirect to another topic in the other (Malta). The queen's former offices are not the primary topics in these cases. In many of the other cases, there are no reliable sources referring to the queen's reign in those territories in this way. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per Paintspot, except Rhodesia because it was an unrecognised self-asserted monarchy. See similar move discussions at Talk:Monarchy of Barbados and Talk:Monarchy of Nigeria (1960–1963), where majority of editors supported that these articles should be titled in "Monarchy of X" form. As far as the old Ghana Empire is concerned, Queen of Ghana can be moved to Monarchy of Ghana (1957–1960) like Monarchy of Nigeria (1960–1963). Peter Ormond 💬 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Indeed, the articles are about the institution of the monarchy, not the individual monarch. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. The articles are about the monarchy itself, not about individual monarchs. JIP | Talk 09:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Neutral, but like Peter Ormond, would prefer exception to preserve "Queen of Rhodesia" as it is the office title cited in the Rhodesian Constitution of 1965 pdf (Sec.5), and no other. Other acts (e.g. Ghana Constitution Act of 1957, p.9) make no mention of explicit title (not even in the letters patent for the governor-general is "Queen of Ghana" spelled out, but only the generic "Queen of UK and of other realms and territories", p.56). Walrasiad (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The proposed targets are neither the common name nor the primary topic. For most of the listed articles the common name is 'Queen of X' and the phrase 'Monarchy of X' is either unknown or ambiguous. The primary topic for monarchy of Ghana and monarchy of Malta are the thousand years of history before the short reign of Elizabeth II. There is no primary topic for monarchy of Trinidad. Moving the redirects or disambiguation pages aside for less important topics is systemically bias. The supporters are acting from unconscious bias and do not realise, and are not interested in learning, that cultures other than White westernism exist. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: the request of moving the "Monarchy of Trinidad and Tobago" dab page wasn't part of the nominator's original request, it was just automatically added. I think the nominator didn't realize that for that one, a dab page already existed. Also, parentheticals (like "Monarchy of Ghana (1957–1960)") can just be added to the titles, in places where Elizabeth II's short reign of that location isn't the primmary topic.Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to neutral. Actually, looking over this, I'm getting inclined to actually placing disambiguation dates for all, or nearly all. "Monarchy of Gambia" and "Monarchy of Uganda" certainly need dates, as pre-colonial monarchies were often referred to in old accounts and documents as "king of the Gambia" and "king of Uganda", and these kings continued. And "Monarchy of Tanganyika" probably too, as it was a title also used by the Kaiser.
Indeed, if you put disambiguation dates, I wouldn't mind leaving them at "Queen of X (1960-1962)". The more I look into, the more I am inclined to it to leaving it as "Queen" with dates, since that's merely a limited royal styling granted by the local acts to QE2 in particular, and there is no suggestion I can find in the wording of these acts that it applies to the next monarch (i.e. a new royal styles act would have had to be to be passed locally whenever Charles comes to the throne). Walrasiad (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed new article names are ambiguous and could just as well relate to earlier monarchies in those areas. I think it entirely inappropriate to propose name changes less than a year after another failed attempt. No new arguments have been made in this case. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_of_Ghana&oldid=1207411256"