Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Greece (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cricket (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Bclass-checklist.svg
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Category:British people of Greek descent[edit]

I have removed Category:British people of Greek descent as unsourced, and as far as I'm aware, untrue. Prince Philip's ancestry is, as with most European royals, somewhat diverse, but largely German in its roots. If he has any Greek ancestry, it is probably from many generations back. The 'Greek' royal family of which Philip was a part were of course imported: George I of Greece who was 'nominated' by the Great Powers, was Danish, in as much as he was anything other than a typical inbred Northern European royal... 13:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

yesss...but his father was born in Greece, thus making his father Greek. Clearly, in that respect; the Duke of Edinburgh is unquestionably of Greek descent.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

hearing aids[edit]

Is it notable that the Duke now wears bilateral hearing aids? 66.67.32.161 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Given his age, I doubt it. And without a source it certainly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Philip's knighthood[edit]

Why is sourced criticism of Prince Philip's Australian knighthood being removed? Comments by the Australian opposition leader and a territorial chief minister (from the PM's own party) are weighty enough to merit inclusion. Down Kitty (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The objection isn't to the criticism, but to its length relative to other references to his honours. Summarize and shrink, otherwise it's UNDUE. FactStraight (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I can't see how my edit summaries didn't make that clear to Down Kitty already. Further, it isn't a matter just of the criticism. It's also a question of why one appointment to one order is being given special mention at all; no other similar appointment--to the Order of Merit, the Order of Canada, the Order of the Garter, or the dozens of others--gets any mention, but the Order of Australia does. Why? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that those other awards generated no controversy at all. Most people were not aware of them at the time, and are probably still not. The AK (which in my opinion should be categorised as an honorary knighthood anyway, as substantive awards in the Order of Australia are available only to Australian citizens, which the Royal Family are certainly not, which is why the Constitution of the Order had to be amended by Letters Patent to explicitly name Prince Charles as a substantive knight in 1981, otherwise his would have been honorary too) has generated a huge storm of controversy, aimed admittedly at Tony Abbott rather than the recipient, and may well have spelt the demise of his premiership and reignited the Australian republican debate. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Then, you're saying it's a matter of Australian politics. Is the titles and honours section of Prince Philip's bio the place to get into that? He has no personal involvement in any debate; he hasn't even commented on the matter; not publicly, anyway. The subject belongs elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I accept that. The controversy is about the sanity and good judgment (or perceived lacks thereof) of the giver, not about the recipient. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand how Miesianiacal thinks that "balance" requires the removal of all criticism, as suggested by his edit summaries. Down Kitty (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"He has no personal involvement in any debate" - that's nonsense, Miesianiacal, for the simple reason that the Queen approved the knighthood and Philip accepted it. Down Kitty (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Abbott may end up getting sacked by his party over this. Surely, if the PM loses his job over Prince Philip that's as worthy of a mention in this article as Pacific Islanders who think he's a god? Or are we only allowed to put hagiography in this article? Down Kitty (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Balance is including support alongside criticism.
The section is a summary one with a prominent link to an article dedicated to the subject of Philip's titles and honours. See WP:SUMMARY.
"Ifs" aren't pertinent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Support for Philip's knighthood may be hard to find but if you can, feel free to add it. No one is stopping you from doing so. Down Kitty (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
None of it belongs here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not? If an honour to Phil threatens to bring down a PM, how does it not belong in this article? Down Kitty (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You've had five editors tell you why not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You're reading things into other people's comments things that are not there. Which other editors in this discussion have actually explicitly said the info should be removed? Down Kitty (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Prince Philip's Australian knighthood[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Most of the arguments presented here are to do it being related to him. However, the majority stated that, as he didn't have a say in it, and it was a decision made by someone else, the article should not include it, per WP:UNDUE and a few other quoted policies. Overall, consensus is not to include it. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh include reference to the controversy around his Australian knighthood? Down Kitty (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional Yes - only if the mention is policy compliant, reliably sourced with multiple sources (2nd & 3rd party), and the information is WP:V which includes a validation check in tertiary sources. AtsmeConsult 00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No
    • 1) Philip is not the subject of any criticism for accepting the honour.
    • 2) WP:UNDUE:
      • The "Honours and honorary military appointments" section makes no other specific reference to an appointment except for Philip's first. The Order of Australia does not warrant special status.
      • The amount of text dedicated to the appointment far outweighs what's used for other appointments.
      • The quotes are excessively long.
    • 3) WP:SUMMARY: The guideline speaks for itself. The information has already been moved to List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
    • 4) WP:NPOV:
      • The amount of text dedicated to criticism of Abbot for advising the Queen to appoint Philip a Knight of the Order of Australia far outweighs what's used for the support, which is absolutely nothing.
      • The quotes were selected to push a republican and anti-British POV.--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The coverage of this matter belongs at Tony Abbott, Order of Australia, and (possibly) where it now is, List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
  • Yes - the criticism is from significant figures - the opposition leader and a territorial chief minister from the PM's own party, and now senior members of the PM's party and it threatens to end the PM's career. It's a significant issue and it concerns Prince Philip. To ignore it or bury it in a fork article, as Miesianical suggests, is ridiculous. Undue weight means we shouldn't have multiple paragraphs on the issue, not that we shouldn't mention it at all or include any quotes. As for NPOV, this isn't our opinion, it's the opinion of senior Australian officials, as long as it's reported objectively there's no NPOV issue and moreover, it's not just an issue of opinion, it's a full blown political crisis. See, for instance, this article: Liberals weigh up leadership options as Prime Minister Tony Abbott faces criticism. When the governing party of Australia is seriously discussing replacing the PM it's a major issue, much more so than the minor gaffes and embarrassment which are detailed elsewhere in the Prince Philip article. Down Kitty (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It is relevant to Tony Abbott and to the Australian honours system; it has very little to do with Prince Philip himself, except as maybe a mention in very brief passing. republican and anti-British POV. Miesianiacal is dead-on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • You say no but then you say "maybe as a mention". So which is it? Down Kitty (talk)
  • No, unless the description is significantly reduced from the extent which initiated this discussion. My objection isn't because it's critical of Philip (since a. it doesn't strike me that it is, as no one alleges that his behavior is a major cause of what ensued and b. an honour is, ipso facto an accolade, so criticism of the grounds for it deserves mention under NPOV); rather the length and depth of coverage of the objection seems, relative to other references to Philip's honours, excessive. Since another's behavior toward Philip has elicited national controversy, a sentence or two (including partial quotes) concisely describing why the honour elicited objection and indicating the impact thereof thus far, with links to articles in which greater detail is provided, suffices. Summarize and shrink, otherwise it's UNDUE for this article. (I've replied "No" to the Rfc question, then specified conditions under which I'd change to "yes", because the question as worded set too low a bar to address the issue truly under debate here which is, for most of us, how much rather than whether mention of the controversy is appropriate). FactStraight (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No because this is only a summary, and writing more on the topic would be undue, when there is another article on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • kind of but nowhere the amount it has now, noting Prince Philip and the Palace havent commented about the appointments controversy. IMHO it should just be something like In 2015 Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott controversially appointed Prince Philip a Knight of the Order of Australia. add a couple of references and viola thats enough the Knight of the Order of Australia article is where the appointments merits and controversy should be discussed in detail. Gnangarra 14:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it deserves even that much mention here? It just seems like a topic related so specifically to Australian politics and only so because of the accidental alignment of unique circumstances (his appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia didn't attract even a peep of protest, after all). Yes, that doesn't make the controversy any less of a fact, but, it does make Philip seem wholly peripheral to it. The subject seems entirely related to the honour itself (Order of Australia and, maybe, List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) and the person who advised the honour be granted (Tony Abbott). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
well of course I think it deserves a mention, while the controversy maybe aimed at Tony, if people thought Prince Philip was worthy of the award this wouldnt be controversial and none of the political backlash would be occurring so yes the controversy is of significant note. Gnangarra 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Mmmm... But, again, it's Abbott who said (by advising the Queen to confer the honour) Philip is worthy of the appointment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it's not worthy of mention even if Abbott ends up getting dumped as party leader and PM because of it? Down Kitty (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No I dont think its worthy of mention even if Tony gets dumped, as I say above the political backlash can only occur if a significant number of Australian people dont see Prince Philip as a worthy recipient. Gnangarra 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I may have misread the situation a little, but I don't think Philip's merit or lack thereof is really the issue. Had this award been made in the Queen's Birthday Honours in June, I think it would have attracted somewhat less criticism. But Australia Day is meant to be all about Australians, and Philip is not of our number. There's a long list of worthy Australians who could have been honoured this way, but Abbott chose a foreigner. That's the main issue, as I see it. Of course, the Royal Family (Will and Kate aside) are seen as pretty irrelevant to Australia these days, and people don't think much of their ribbon-cutting and hand-shaking and speech-making activities, so this incident just added some fuel to that existing fire of disregard. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC
much of the argument and counter claims are merit based, nationality is secondary Gnangarra 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The "an Australian wasn't honoured" part of this is rooted (obviously I don't mean that in the Australian way) in many Australians thinking wrongly that Philip is a foreigner. If his actions in relation to the Order of Canada are considered (turning down an honorary appointment because such would imply he's a foreigner to Canada), he likely believes he's Australian himself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
And that begs the question: Why wasn't his AC a few years back an honorary appointment? It's never been described as such, but he is no more an Australian than he is a Canadian or a Papua New Guinean or a Jamaican or a New Zealander. Not even the Queen holds any of these citizenships, much less her husband. He has never qualified for a substantive appointment in any level of the Order of Australia, which is why a special amendment to the Constitution of the Order was necessary for his AK (just as it was for Prince Charles in 1981). -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What I think you mean is he's no more an Australian citizen than he is a Canadian, or Papua New Guinean, or Jamaican one. Nationality is more than citizenship. As I alluded to above, he considers himself Canadian (not a foreigner to Canada), but, he's not a Canadian citizen.
Regardless, I know what you're talking about, but, I don't know the answer. It certainly seems that, according to the Order of Australia's constitution and in the absence of any constitutional amendment, his appointment as a Companion of that order would have to to have been honorary. However, his acceptance of that kind of honour doesn't jive with his position on honorary appointment to the Order of Canada, which he was obviously really quite persistent about (for 30 years). That's why I suspect the appointment as an AC was substantive. But, I certainly can't find any proof of it (only insinuations and statements by commentators). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you're engaging in wishful thinking at this point, which is irrelevant to what the article should say. Regardless of whether or not you think Australians should be offended by the appointment or whether it should be a controversy, the fact it it has resulted in condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum and a serious political crisis that may cost Abbott his job. To ignore this, and pretend that it has nothing to do with Prince Philip and should not be referred to at all in some sort of misguided attempt to protect him, is absurd. 147.194.16.123 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Straw man argument and assumption of bad faith. But, yes, Jack and I were OT. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No. The controversy is entirely focussed on the bestower, Abbott, not the recipient. That's where thing stand at the moment. But read on.
  • Comment and Prediction. I have every reason to believe that this knighthood is not substantive but honorary, and when it comes to public attention that the Queen's husband has been given only an honorary knighthood by one of her realms (he not being a citizen of that realm), there will be further ridicule and controversy, possibly now involving Prince Philip. See Talk:Order of Australia#Prince Philip's AK. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks to Mies, I now have every reason to believe it was substantive. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No per Mitch Ames. De Guerre (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think what might make more sense at this point is removing the quotations and simply saying "the recommendation for the appointment by Prime Minister Tony Abbott was widely criticised and was followed by a challenge to Abbott's leadership." - with wording revised to "successful challenge..." or "an internal party election that removed him from office" or some such if the spill is successful. 147.194.16.123 (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This is good language and a good follow-up plan per my "No" vote above, and changes that to a "Yes" if substantially enacted. FactStraight (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Why overdo Australian politicing here instead of the articles where that belongs? There is no suggestion that Philip is dabbling in local affairs. Whatever the outcome, the k. has been awarded and there may or may not be change of prime minister. The political rhetoric of "the challenge" and the quotes could be removed right now. Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I agree with Mitch Ames. As to doing more than that: whereas it definitely has its place in the articles about the Abbott government or Abbott himself, regarding Philip it's merely a "fait divers" and thus it would be undue weight. -- fdewaele, 6 Feb. 2015, 13:32.
  • Probably not necessary as a more specific article exists over at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Order of Australia. If that wasn't the case then here on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh might make sense—however that's not the case here, and it doesn't make sense to duplicate everything (otherwise, why would there be two separate articles). —Sladen (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes Done in a responsible and well sourced way by an experienced editor. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No Agree with Mitch Ames and others. Further up was a comment if people thought Prince Philip was worthy of the award this wouldnt be controversial: the question of his "worthiness" is not in issue; if it were, there would need to be an entire section for it, pro and con, which would be UNDUE. The controversy is exclusively a matter of ongoing internal Australian party politics and the public controversy there on whether Abbott is worthy to be prime minister, and the crass way in which he went about this. Why has the information been dumped in this article and discussed here when it should be first at Tony Abbott and/or Abbott Government and secondly by link to that from "List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", if anywhere? Qexigator (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Summoned here by RfC bot. I can't think of any conceivable reason to exclude the one sentence currently in the article on the criticism that it has received. Frankly I believe that it is too sparse and should be fleshed out. Not mentioning it, or mentioning it in an uninformative fashion, is not neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: conceivable? Have a look at comments above, and reconsider. Those comments are from people who have thought about it. This affair is already blowing over and will soon be too peripheral and stale for any mention here, which has notability beyond the confines of the local politics. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the number of words given to the subject in this article has been greatly reduced. But, I still maintain there needn't be any mention of it here, since it already is mentioned in other, far more appropriate places. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No Absent any reason to believe he initiated it, it is much the same as a club "electing" honorary members who did nothing to seek the honor. Collect (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No The controversy has little relevance to the subject of this article, who did nothing at all incorrect in accepting the honor. TFD (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.