User talk:Hughryan

Republic

Could you please stop changing the quote from Republic? I understand that you may not agree with their opinions, but it is a direct quote, as suggested by the preceding "Republic argue", the quotation marks, and the reference which follows it. Therefore it should be written exactly as it originally was stated, whether it is factually correct or not. It is important to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I do not wish to be drawn into an edit war over this issue. Thanks, «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The general consensus has been to put counter-arguments to pro-republican points in the "Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy" section rather than the "Arguments in favour of a republic" section, as this keeps each section more to the point (rather than being a lengthy argument) and reduces the likelihood of certain arguments being unnecessarily repeated in multiple sections. I wouldn't object to such counter-arguments being added (even though I would likely disagree with them), as long as they are properly referenced - you may notice that much of the "Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy" section is not referenced - otherwise they are liable to be removed. Thanks, «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it needs to be completely rewritten; the main issues really are a shortage of references (this has been a problem for at least a year as can be seen by the refimprove templates dating September 2010) and a certain degree of ambiguity/imprecision (e.g. "Monarchists argue...", "Republicans claim...", etc.) I would suggest dealing with this first and foremost (I have been working on it from time to time) before contemplating anything else. Thanks, «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]