Talk:Mark Phillips

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Phillips article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Royalty Low‑importance

	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.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olympics

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics 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.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Arms

Should include arms (with forget-me-nots!) -- is there a public-domain picture or is anyone willing to make one? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget-me-nots? If Mr Phillips has arms, and you can cite a source for their blazon, I know just the man to recreate them! D B D 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging Felicity Tonkin to this article. She is only notable because of the impact of her conception and birth on her father, her father's first wife (the Princess Royal) and the Royal Family. She is only a subset of any other given article. See also Talk:Felicity Tonkin#Notability and discuss here. Charles 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As nominator. Charles 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything more to say on the girl than is already integrated into this one? I would suggest not. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, it's to get rid of a useless article. Charles 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore we can know say that the merge has occured (rather than that it is merely proposed) and delete her article, yes? Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, yes. Charles 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retired from Military?

How can one be retired from military service after only 9 years, except for being retired for disability? Since he was an active equestrian after he left military service, it would seem to rule out disability? Mustered out, or honourably discharged, seem more appropriate. 99.20.118.250 (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Military honours"

Captain is a rank, not an honour. It is the position he formerly held in his job. The Victoria Cross would be a military honour. Captain isn't an honour any more than a position in any other job would be. If he had been assistant manager at a company we wouldn't list that as an honour, and this is the same. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a high-ranking position in the military can be honorary. It makes sense that it would have been put in this section. Honestly, I don't really care what section it's in, so we can move it around if need be. However, it makes sense to have it in the article somewhere. The parent section is "Titles, styles, honors and arms". Title seems appropriate. Removing it from the article outright simply because it's mislabeled isn't the right step forward. Please stop edit warring. You've blanked this section 3 times now. Discuss this first, and then once consensus forms, make the change, per WP:BRD. — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain is not a high rank. It is the third lowest of eleven officer ranks. Please read [[1]].
As explained in the article, his appointment is not honourary, it is a perfectly standard captain's rank.
Yes, it does make sense to have it in the article somewhere - which is why it's mentioned another six times in the article already.
A rank isn't a title. It's a rank. It describes his relative position within an organisation.
You accused me of edit warring after one revert, and of breaching 3rr after two. That's not what edit warring is, and that's not what breaching 3rr is.
If you have a source for Captain being an honour, please feel free to re-add the information with a citation. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned 6 times. It's mentioned once in the prose of "Military career". Hyperbole doesn't help discussion. Listing it in a section titled "Titles, styles, honors and arms" makes sense. It's even in its own subsection titled "Military". I don't see a problem. If you'd like to seek a third opinion for your change, feel free to pursue WP:3O. Perhaps others will have a different view. In the meantime, please stop edit warring to remove it. Your edits are, indeed, edit warring. Thanks — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, his name is given as "Capt Mark Phillips" (1); The lede begins "Captain Mark Anthony Peter Phillips" (2); the Military Career section states "By the start of 1974, Phillips was an acting captain" (4), "Phillips was substantively promoted to captain in July 1975." (5), and that "After retiring from the Army, Phillips continued to style himself Captain Mark Phillips" (6); the personal life section states "it was confirmed by Capt Phillips' solicitors at the law firm CKFT..." (7). That's seven mentions of his being a captain. Six was not hyperbole. I have reverted only as many times as you have. If I am edit warring, then so are you. Per WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Unless you have a reliable source that describes his being a captain as a "military honour", then please remove your original research. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 of those appear in the same section, "Military career", which I mentioned above. The others are titles before his name, typically abbreviated. Nothing in the article indicates that "Captain" is an honor. The section for honors is above the section listing him as a captain. As I said, you're more than welcome to get a third opinion if you'd like. I'd be happy to discuss this further if there's anything new to discuss. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Military" is a subsection of "Honours". How can that possibly not indicate that captain is an honour? Per WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN, please either remove your original research or provide a citation for it. 89.100.207.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above a few times now, if the mention is in the wrong section, we can move it. I don't have a problem with that at all. We can make "Military" a 3rd level heading (===Military===), for example. The content is sourced to the London Gazette. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

daughter (?)Felicity Tonkin

It says in the "Issue" box under the birth column for Felicity Tonkin "DNA testing 1991 confirmation". Earlier in the article it gives her birth as August 1985, and also that Phillips was confirmed as the father after DNA testing DONE in 1991. As is, a reasonable person would interpert it to mean that a DNA test done in 1991 needs to be confirmed, which surely is not the case. 74.69.8.195 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Herald article at https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/royal-scandal-zara-tindalls-secret-nephew-born-in-nz/IXPU6D2W22DNIJBL7WT5TEB7VU/ and cited as a reference states that "A DNA test in 1991 confirmed Phillips as her father". This is the same reference used on the Zara Phillips page. So DNA test result is indeed "confirmed". Mivens (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the first paragraph - from "showjumping designer" to "eventing course designer" - there was no reference given for the former so I'm assuming the latter wouldn't need it either, if it does then http://www.burghley-horse.co.uk/3DayEvent/Cross_Country.html has him listed as the Burghley course designer for 2005-13 and http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/rio-cross-country-designer-welcomed-riders/ implies he was short listed for the Rio 2016 Olympic course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.77.198 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zara

@Martinevans123: Actually an IP user, who is blocked because of vandalism, added the names of these books to the articles of Mark, Zara and Anne in November 2010. It seems that those books do not contain any information about Zara's birth out of wedlock and the sentence was also removed from Zara and Anne's articles. Keivan.f^Talk 18:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clear explanation. That was some time ago, I see. But the IP wasn't blocked because of vandalism, it seems, but for "making legal threats"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Well actually I didn't know why the administrators had blocked him. I just thought it was because of vandalism, as it's the common reason of blocking. Keivan.f^Talk 04:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘Captain’ as honorific

He continued to style himself Captain Mark Phillips, as captains are customarily allowed to use this honorific rank in civilian life.

Unless something has changed pretty recently, the only captains who can use their rank in civilian life, are those cavalry officers (like Phillips) whose job, either in the service or afterwards, has principally involved horses. As not many people know of this little item of etiquette, it is easy to assume wrongly that Phillips is out of order in using this rank. Valetude (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Mark Phillips. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227230614/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/armed-forces/army/retired.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/professions/armed-forces/army/retired.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Children in Infobox vs body of article

The "Personal life" section in the body of the article lists four children: Peter, Zara, Felicity Tonkin, and Stephanie. But the Infobox only lists the first two of these. I thought I should check here before changing it: is there some reason for the discrepancy? Gronk Oz (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's because Peter and Zara have their own articles whereas the others don't. Usually, non-notable children are only in the infobox as a number (e.g. "Children = 4, incl Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall"). Celia Homeford (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford: I do like that proposal. The notable ones get linked, without denying the existence of the others. I like it so much I will be Bold and make that change - thanks!--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2024

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: Not moved. Clear consensus against moving Mark Phillips, who was the husband of a British royal. No consensus for or against politician moves. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– There are nine men listed upon the Mark Phillips (disambiguation) page, one of whom — Mark Phillips (Guyanese politician) — is the prime minister of Guyana. Thus, it would seem that the equestrian may not have greater renown than the combined prominence of the remaining eight men. Since the prime minister is disambiguated via his national origin, the English and the Welsh political figures should be likewise. Depending upon consensus, I would also support the alternative option, per WP:SMALLDIFFERENCES, of leaving the Welsh politician, Marc Phillips, who is the sole "Marc Phillips", unchanged. Also, since the English politician, Mark Philips (politician), is the sole "Mark Philips", his entry can be moved to simply "Mark Philips", which currently redirects to Mark Phillips (disambiguation). Finally, the prime minister, Mark Phillips (Guyanese politician), who is the sole politician named "Mark Phillips", can be moved to Mark Phillips (politician) or Mark Phillips (prime minister), both of which are currently redlinks. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the main proposed version (the one shown in the bullet points above) per nominator, as opposed to the alternative proposed version (the one shown in the paragraph). Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the horseman is primary topic confirmed by a quick Google search as the husband of Anne, Princess Royal. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject England, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Olympics, WikiProject British Royalty, and WikiProject Equine have been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the equestrian and British royal family member is the clear primary topic (with more pageviews than all the others combined [2]), and the others are already suitably disambiguated, with the possible exception of Mark Phillips (Guyanese politician) who could potentially be moved to Mark Phillips (politician) as the only politician with that exact spelling, per WP:SMALLDIFFERENCES. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving Mark Phillips per primary topic as shown by page views and web search. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the reasons given above. The subject of this article seems to be the primary topic. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving Mark Phillips and the disambiguation page per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The pages on the two politicians can be listed separately in a future RM. Keivan.f^Talk 22:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first 2, support second 2. Politicians should be disambiguated properly, but equestrian probably PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Mark Philips is the clear primary topic. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (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.