Talk:Charles III

Piped links

Please see Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Piped links for discussion on this matter. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Divorce section makes the prince sound somewhat.... sugar coated

I can't help feeling, having read this section, that it's not perticularly fair and has portrays the Prince in a much better light than what a more balanced article would.

For example, there are phrases which delibrately give the impression that Diana was 'unstable and temperamental', there's hear-say 'one by one, she apparently dismissed each of Charles' long-standing staff members and fell out with his friends' and only at the end it's noted that Charles cheated on her!!!

I think we should rewrite the divorce section to make it more balanced - does anyone have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I thibk it's the complete opposite, it doesn't mention Diana's many affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.85.218 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arms section is unintelligible

Could someone replace the bizarre table in the Arms section with some prose that is intelligible to non-British people? I can't make heads or tails of half of it. For example, there is a section called "Supporters" (with no explanation as to what as a "Supporter" is), that states:
Dexter a lion rampant gardant Or imperially crowned Proper, sinister a unicorn Argent, armed, crined and unguled Or, gorged with a coronet Or composed of crosses patée and fleurs de lis a chain affixed thereto passing between the forelegs and reflexed over the back also Or
Is that vandalism or is that text supposed to be there? If so, what the heck does it mean? And why does it end with "or"? And why are the ors capitalized? Parsing this table seems to require some very specialized knowledge, which is not in line with the WP:JARGON and WP:MTAA guidelines. If the table cannot be replaced entirely, it should at least be augmented with some explanatory text. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See blazon. Or here refers to a golden tincture; it's customarily capitalized in blazons, and placed after the noun (weird for English, but it's a Norman heritage; it's like Charles's mother being of the United Kingdom [etc] Queen, I guess). There's nothing wrong with keeping the blazon, but a layman explanation should definitely be added by someone who knows what he's talking about. Maybe the people at WP:HV can help. —JAO • T • C 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a paraphrase:

Quarterly 1st and 4th gules three lions passant guardant in pale or armed and langed azure 2nd or a lion rampant gules armed and langued azure within a double tressure flory counterflory of the second 3rd azure a harp or stringed argent overall an escutcheon of Royal Badge of Wales.

The shield is divided in quarters. The upper left and lower right quarters are red, with three golden lions with blue tongues and claws, arrayed in a vertical row, each walking with three feet on the ground and looking at the viewer face on.

The upper right quarter is gold, with a red lion with a blue tongue and claws standing on its left hind foot inside a double border inset from the edges of the quarter. The border is decorated with fleurs-de-lis alternating inside and outside the border.

The lower left quarter is blue, with a golden harp with silver strings.

In the center of the arms, a shield depicting the Royal Badge of Wales.

Dexter a lion rampant gardant Or imperially crowned Proper, sinister a unicorn Argent, armed, crined and unguled Or, gorged with a coronet Or composed of crosses patée and fleurs de lis a chain affixed thereto passing between the forelegs and reflexed over the back also Or

On the right, a golden lion rearing up on its left hind leg with its forelegs elevated, the right above the left, with its face turned to the front, wearing an imperial crown in its natural colors.

On the left, a silver unicorn with golden horn, hair, and hooves, wearing a golden coronet as a collar, the coronet consisting of crosses with arms narrow at the center and broad at the periphery and fleurs-de-lis, with a golden chain passing from the coronet between the forelegs and thrown over the unicorn's back.

The whole differenced by a plain Label of three points Argent, as the eldest child of the sovereign

With a silver band with three pendants running across the top of the entire shield.

Note that our picture does not show the supporters! - Nunh-huh 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also changed the description of the crown of the Prince of Wales from 'coronet' to 'crown'. A coronet never has arches, the headgear of the Heir Apparent to the British throne and the Prince of Wales (both follow the same design) has two arches and is correctly described as a crown. [See also the article on here on Coronets, where the headgear for the Heir Apparant is correctly described as a crown, not a coronet]. Ds1994 (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed?

Why is there a neutrality disputed indicator next to the listing of HM The Queen as HRH The Prince's mother? I was pretty sure we were convinced :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.9.161 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's her description rather than maternity that's disputed. Someone apparently felt it was not "neutral" to describe her as Queen of the United Kingdom, rather than, say, Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, or Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Quite silly, really. -Nunh-huh 23:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be silly, if it were actually what was being proposed. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if there ever was a "proposal" it's been archived. There's no active discussion on the neutrality "issue"; if you'd care to enlighten us, why not do so rather than just dropping a subjunctive in to inform us of your disagreement? - Nunh-huh 03:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It has indeed been resolved. Thus, I've no disagreement to inform you of. Discussion has wrapped up and the tag no longer exists, so I trust we can now work together to make other improvements. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So then it was what was being proposed after all? - Nunh-huh 08:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, no; what you said was proposed actually was never proposed. There was a discussion on the neutrality matter, though it had essentially wrapped up by the time you commented above on Feb 11. The decision was to return to "Elizabeth II", as it had been for ages before. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I note in that discussion (about another page and another person) references to "Elizabeth II of Canada", the "Queen of Belize" and the "Queen of Australia", so my comment seems not far from the mark. Unfortunate that the tag remained after the discussion had concluded, isn't it. - Nunh-huh 00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Far enough from the mark, though; it would seem hypocritical to me if one were to claim that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" was unacceptably NPOV, but propose "Elizabeth II of Canada" as a superior alternative! :) It's also my impression that leaving the tag for an additional 24hrs was merely playing it safe. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's my impression that best practice would be to actually discuss the placement of a neutrality tag on the talk page of the article on which it is placed. Then no one will have to guess (in this case, quite accurately) what it is about. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that that is the preferred scenario. However, in this particular instance the matter spread across more than one article. Rather than having multiple parallel discussions about the same subject, it seemed better to concentrate it in one place. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Even in that case I suppose a link to the centralized discussion belongs on the talk page of each article afflicted with the tag. For next time, then, since the tag is at least temporarily absent here. -Nunh-huh 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Hence, the link above to the centralised discussion; the one that I just pointed you to. As sometimes happens here, things may have become slightly convoluted; but, I suspect it was only because of unique factors. I assure you I tried my best to make things as clear and open as possible. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps next time the link could be marked as "discussion with regard to neutrality tag on how we should refer to the Queen" rather than "link about this matter" with no indication as to what "this matter" might be? - Nunh-huh 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] The original header I had above was more clearly associated with the tag in the article. Another user subsequently expressed a dislike of the header and changed it at the other talk page; I thus changed it here to match. Regardless, is it really so difficult to simply click on the link? --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be best for the creator of the link to label it properly, rather than for him to insist that the curious find and click on the mystery link, and then complain when someone gives an accurate precis of what is to be found there. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I've tried to explain to you what happened. As you seem unsatisfied with what I've presented, I could go to the further effort of showing you diffs of edits made across two articles and their associated talk pages to illustrate. However, as it's really such a trivial matter, I'd rather you just simply took my word for it: my original set up may not have been ideal, but it was what I thought best given the circumstances, and I did not want to see additional conflict over nothing more than the wording of a talk page header. If you don't want to believe me, well... I can live with it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

HRH Charles, Prince of Quackery

There is enough notable criticism in RS of his ignorance of scientific matters and his support for unscientific (=alternative medicine) medical practices that we could easily have a separate article on the subject. It could be entitled:

• Prince Charles and alternative medicine

Here's a recent one:

• Prince Charles detox 'quackery', featuring Edzard Ernst

What think ye of the idea? Right now we have an article that is about as whitewashed of any form of criticism as any article I've yet seen. Even on this controversial subject there is only this meager mention of the subject:

• As such, Charles has also been known to have interest in alternative medicine, which drew fire from the medical establishment. In 2004, doctors spoke out against Charles' endorsement of coffee enemas as a treatment for cancer, and, in April 2008, The Times published a letter from Edzard Ernst, a professor of Complementary Medicine, that asked Charles and his Foundation for Integrated Health to recall two guides promoting "alternative medicine", saying: "the majority of alternative therapies appear to be clinically ineffective, and many are downright dangerous."

The subject needs to be developed into a whole article. Here's a search to start with:

• Google search: prince charles "alternative medicine" - 25,000 hits

-- Fyslee (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see any particular "need" for an entire article dedicated to attacking Charles. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really irrelevant to Wikipedia whether it attacks or not. We document what happens in the world, and this is a notable subject where all sides of the issue can be documented, IOW his POV will also be documented. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you were criticising the lack of criticism, I got the impression your proposed article would fill the supposed gap; ie. it would be predominantly critical. However, if I misread (or you miswrote), and you do wish for something balanced, then I shall reserve my judgement until there's something tangible to judge. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be on the subject, and there would naturally be lots of criticism from V & RS, but his POV would also have to be presented, which is what NPOV requires. BTW, "balance" at Wikipedia doesn't mean that there must be an equal amount of "for" and "against". The weight would favor the subject matter (identified by the title), and since there are several sides to the matter, they must be aired.

Actually the whole royal family has a historically problematic relationship to alternative medicine, most notably the pseudoscience homeopathy, which sets a very bad example for the nation. That could be another article too. In past times there was so much awe and respect surrounding the royalty that public criticism was subdued, if voiced at all. Times have changed, and since the Prince has expressed much support for nonsensical and even dangerous POV, the scientific world has risen in rebellion and thrown off their earlier retiscence and openly rebuked Charles. It's a serious matter that leads to deaths and increases the profits of quacks and charlatans. At a time when the public's knowledge of science is at a historically low point, and superstition and ignorance are regaining their hold on large parts of society, such a bad example is tragic and also does more to undermine confidence in the royal family. It just doesn't deserve it anymore. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Prince Charles' attitude towards science and medicine is quite notable, and should be included in this article. It is not a criticism of him, it's just what he espouses, and it should be in this article. Homeopathy doesn't work, because it's just water. I'll support Fyslee's addition to this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be included in this article, whether there is a daughter article or not. THere is probably more than enough RS for a daughter article, but that shouldn't reduce the coverage here. I fully support the addition. Verbal chat 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only a really small aspect of Charles' life, I really think the current section is more than enough...--Cameron* 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I get the sense that people think this subject isn't presently covered in the article, when, in reality, it is. The question then is: is it covered enough? I suppose the answer is a matter of personal opinion, but I'd say that however much is inserted, it should certainly be only a fraction of the content dedicated to his architectural and environmental pursuits, as - as Cameron notes - the homeopathy stuff is really not an area Charles intently focuses on. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. And as a side note, this isn't the place for discussion. --Cameron* 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Lecturing three experienced, good faith editors about what the talk section is or isn't. Give us a break. Three experienced, good faith editors, are convinced that it is notable and it should be included in more detail, especially since his anti-science comments are given a lot of weight (if not because everyone thinks Charlie knows anything, it's just his position). We can discuss herein on whether it should be included, how it should be included, etc. Don't insult us with a nonsensical reference to an irrelevant guideline (at least in this case) just to end the conversation. BTW, his environmental pursuits are solidly anti-science too. Architecture isn't science, so I could care less about his opinion, especially since it's kind of a UK problem, not a world-wide one. Let's not whitewash this article, if there is an opportunity to improve it significantly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Cameron sought to end the discussion. I only interpret his words as a reminder that we should keep our discussion focused. However dearly they're held, personal views on homeopathy or Charles himself don't contribute much to this matter. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the impressive scope of Charles' ignorance and his habit of embracing potentially dangerous quackery (coffee enemas?), it is entirely appropriate to have a section dedicated to this, with a link to a more complete article on the subject. What exists here now doesn't even begin to cover it. Doc Tropics 18:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, I would never presume to end a discussion. Claiming Prince Charles' opinions constitute "anti-science", "nonsense" and that he sets "a bad example for the nation", however is personal POV which is entirely irrelevant to this talk page and the article. Best, --Cameron* 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you there are plenty of RS to support such statements. Just look at the scientific and media response to the infamous "grey-goo" gaffe. His support of AltMed and derision of science has had a disproportionate effect on the perception of AltMed in the UK, as shown by RS, and that is worthy of its own section and possibly a daughter article. It is also interesting to note how frosty homeopaths have been to his recent efforts to set up offquack. Verbal chat 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] There's a difference between a source saying the Prince's views are "nonsense" and you saying the Prince's views are "nonsense". Cameron's point, I believe (and he may correct me if I'm wrong), was that we all should stick to the former and avoid the latter. I take it that one of you will soon present a proposal for additions/alterations to the page? --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a difference, and it's the same difference between the article itself and the talk page. Here we informally discuss things, often without adding refs to each of our statements. When we are actually developing the content, then we will indeed use refs, since there are plenty of them. What you have correctly observed is that my personal opinion happens to coincide nicely with the sources and the scientific community's opinion of him.

I suggest that we just start with adding more content to a new section (merging it with the existing meager content on the subject) and when it becomes large enough for a new article, we can spin it off as an appropriate fork and leave a "main article" link and a copy of the LEAD of that new article. If we don't develop it very much, then it can just remain a section here. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good plan Fyslee, and it looks to me like you've made a good start on the new section. Doc Tropics 03:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

The sections and content dealing with the first marriage, adultery, separation, divorce, remarriage, death of Diana, etc., aren't in chronological order and needs some fixing, probably by making some different headings. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems quite chronological to me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Possessive punctuation

That header may have a double meaning. Regardless, as the punctuation format used here to indicate a possessive has been very long-standing, I think it would be up to anyone wishing to change it to gain a consensus for the move. It seems utterly unnecessary to me as not only is the Charles' form completely permissible outside Wikipedia, but Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives very clearly states that either Charles's or Charles' is acceptable, as long as consistency is maintained. User:JohnArmagh should make his case here as to why only the former is to be used. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

British English usage is quite specific. Only where the terminating s on a noun is a construct of the plural form is it permissable to omit the possessive and terminate with the apostrophe. It is likely that the usage terminating with the apostrophe irrespective of plurality is a development either from non-British regions (possibly the English-speaking Americas), or (quite likely) has come about through mistaken perception of the rules of punctuation.

Given this mistaken perception, a concensus on the matter would not establish correctness, but would rather establish the widespread nature of the misconception. In the end language is determined by common usage rather than established standards, but it will be a sad state of affairs when standards are not upheld, as this would bring into question the purpose of educating people in the proper use of the language if it is so easily to be left open to common usage without underlying standard, and this trend can only lead inexorably into misinterpretation and ambiguity of the information intended to be related in the text. --JohnArmagh (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I personally cannot say with absolute certainty that you are wrong. However, if what you say is true, I still think the MoS is the place to bring this up, as the problem (if it exists at all) has a far wider reach than just this page; the s' form is used frequently across articles of a "British nature" (though, it's also debatable just how uniquely "British" this article is). A good number of British individuals have edited this article, and in all the years I've been looking at it, none has raised any issue with the way the possessive of a singular noun ending in s has been presented. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I've asked for assistance from people at the MoS. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can say with absolute certainty that JohnArmagh is at least half wrong. See the OED: In England it goes by the name of ‘King Charles' Wain’. Omitting the terminal s is more formal and poetic, but it was standard usage as recently as the nineteenth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt 2

I dunno, but does anyone have any details about this assasination attempt? Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5wrFJp9Jo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

this attempted assassination. 23-year-old David Kang fires a starting pistol at the Prince of Wales during an Australia Day speech in Sydney Australia, on January 26, 1994. David Kang's attemp was regarded withe the protest of boat people. David Kang has become a lawyer now.(XJG) 19: 09, 13 June 2010

How can you assassinate with a starting pistol, hit them with it? Clearly not an assassination attempt. Leaky Caldron 11:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The LEAD utterly fails its duty

The lead section needs to be developed much more. There are many subjects that are covered and only a few are mentioned in the lead. It can't stand alone as a complete summary of the article. If a subject has its own heading, it deserves mention in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten it. The earlier version was mostly trivia about rarely used titles. Kauffner (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fatuous Facts

He's '...a fan of Leonard Cohen' yet there is no mention of the Goon show and the fact that he was made an honorary patron of the Goon Show Appreciation Society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.102.179 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

House

The infobox should include Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. By Glücksburg house law and by European convention (excluding the UK) he is a member of that house and is also widely regarded as such. He couldn't be in the line of succession to the headship and ducal title if he wasn't a member of the house. Urban XII (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, a certain user appears to be wikistalking me constantly interrupting my editing with edit conflicts. It is not acceptable to move the information on his place in the line of succession of his own house to the most obscure section of the article. Articles on other royals and nobles who are in the line of succession to the British throne prominently feature this in the lead section. The line of succession to the headship of his own house is much more relevant than being number 200 in the British line of succession. Urban XII (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the infobox should mention Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and I agree with you reasoning as well. However, I am afraid that including S-H-S-G would be original research. Do we have any sources that confirm that he is a member of that house, that he considers himself to be a member of that house or that every legitimate agnatic descendant of a member of the House of S-H-S-G is himself/herself a member of the House of S-H-S-G? I know, it's common knowledge that children belong to their father's house but we need sources nevertheless. Furthermore, mentioning the House of S-H-S-G in the infobox of this article would require doing the same in the articles about the Duke of Edinburgh's other children and in the articles about the children of his sons. Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does it seem that the Queen does not want Charles to be King?

Now that we hear that the Queen is taking steps to have Prince William take on some of her duties and responsibilities, it seems clear that the Queen has not and does not intend for Charles to ever hold the title King. Would such a statement really be construed as opinion, for the purpose of inclusion in the main article?

Has there ever been discussion of this here in the talk section of this article?

Can William take or be given the thrown as King before the death of Charles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Complete POV. Why can't she simply be training him for when he becomes king after Charles? And it would require an Act of Parliament to exclude Charles from the succession. ðarkuncoll 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tharky's correct, anon. All the tabloid, media etc etc stories (over the years) about William replacing Charles as Elizabeth II's successor, are hallow. The UK Parliament has the last say on the British succession. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And the Canadian parliament has the last say on the Canadian succession, and the Australian parliament on the Australian succession, and the Jamaican parl... well, you get the point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew I should've mentioned the other 15 realm Parliaments, hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Longest serving Prince of Wales

Regarding the paragraph where it's mentioned that Prince Charles will become the longest serving Prince of Wales in British history in April 2011:

Edward VII was Prince of Wales for just over 59 years from late 1841 to early 1901. Charles became Prince of Wales in 1958, so wouldn’t he have to wait until 2017 to become the record holder? — EgbertW (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely he should have been created Prince of Wales just after his grandfather died on 6 February 1952? (HaroldLockwood (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Should have been, Harold? Well, no, actually. The only person traditionally eligible to be Prince of Wales is the eldest son of the sovereign; but whether the title is granted at all, and if so, when, is entirely a matter for the sovereign. This is different from the Duchy of Cornwall, the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Earldom of Carrick, and the High Stewardship of Scotland, which are all automatically the Heir Apparent's titles. Charles became all those latter titles immediately he became Heir Apparent on 6 February 1952. But he did not become Prince of Wales until 1958, because his mother was not ready to grant him that title till then. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? (92.12.40.174 (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Charles will be the longest-serving Heir to the Throne in 2011. (92.13.64.160 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Like that's a title a guy reall wants -- just sitting around, twiddling thumbs, waiting for the phone call reporting that Mum has kicked the bucket so that he can pick up luggage and move into the big bedroom. One must be patient with these things, of course. Sixty years or so of waiting, hum-dum-dum. Gee, that wall on the clock certainly ticks slowly...

Actually Prince Charles is very active, and has tremendous work for various charities and humanitarian organisations etc He most certainly does not "Sit around twiddling thumbs".

Interest in architecture

It is surely true that PoW has been criticised by top architects for his perceived interference in architectural projects. I think this needs to be balanced by a statement that his involvement is generally popular and applauded by most people. But it needs a reliable source. Any thoughts? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a section for public perception?

As a public figure he's certainly generated a lot of controversy, with many thinking he should not succeed his mother on some of the various thrones. Is a perception section wikipedia like?