Talk:Peter Fraser (judge)

Knighthood

@Pigsonthewing: I really do not understand your objection to the standard phrasing "knighted" to refer to someone who has been created a Knight Bachelor. It is used in hundreds of articles on Wikipedia because it is the correct terminology. The most formal terminology is "received the honour of Knighthood" or "the honour of Knighthood was conferred upon",[1] but, as that sounds somewhat pompous and formal, "knighted" is the acceptable shorthand. People are "appointed" other honours (e.g. "appointed Knight Commander of the British Empire", not "appointed to" or "made"), as is also used on thousands of articles, but not to Knights Bachelor. Please explain the basis of your objection to this very common and normal term. I'm afraid all I can see here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a possible lack of knowledge of the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I really do not understand your objection to saying that someone who has been created a Knight Bachelor was, er, created a Knight Bachelor. We are Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with an international audience, not an outlet for archaic UK government formalities (of which I am well aware, despite your snide and baseless insinuation to the contrary; just as the "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is clearly yours to own). As I said in my edit summary, if this ambiguous phrasing is used in other articles then they, too, need to be improved, per the enjoinder at WP:ASTONISH: "Avoid Easter egg links". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So, you think that your opinion trumps that of many other people who write British biographical articles and use and always have used this terminology. Not sure why, but okay then... We'll have to agree to disagree. I am still rather mystified, however, as to why you think "created a Knight Bachelor" is more common and/or obvious than "knighted", which has always been the common term in the English language everywhere and is in no way an "archaic UK government [formality]". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputed content

I removed the reference from the Sun newspaper. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article, as it is a deprecated source per WP:THESUN. The Guardian article does not verify that "In 1986 Fraser joined the Royal Marines with two friends from Cambridge University, Prince Edward and Quintus Travis", so that has been removed as well. So all that is left of that paragraph is that he left the Royal Marines in early 1987, which is not notable or significant. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion to restore this disputed content is on those seeking to include the disputed content per WP:ONUS. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a dispute of the claim that he was in the Marines, and that sort of detail (a major stage of life, attempted but aborted career path, etc.) seems a standard sort of detail to include in a bio article. I agree that focusing the wording on his leaving unusual unless there are multiple refs that focus on that (DUE, etc.). DMacks (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of detail would be standard if we have a reliable source that stated it was going to be a "career path" for him, but we don't know that he planned on making a career out of being in the Marines, or the reason he chose to leave. Absence those sources, I have disputed any content being sourced to WP:THESUN, as being suitable for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's as much as neutral statement as someone's educational background. It may or may not be relevant to their later work, it's simply a bio detail that The Guardian has seen fit to report. It was there for about two months, so I'm not sure status-quo for ONUS is to omit--this is just an editorial decision not a BLP violation. But also, the ref actually does state "Prince Edward bowed out of his career with the Royal Marines" and then discusses his now exploring other career options. I don't know all British publications that well...is The Guardian as bad as The Sun? DMacks (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about Prince Edward and his career, that belongs in his article. And The Guardian article does not verify the claim that - In 1986 Fraser joined the Royal Marines with two friends from Cambridge University, Prince Edward and Quintus Travis - it only says he resigned on 12 January 1987. Again, I am disputing any content being sourced to The Sun as being suitable for inclusion, and the ONUS is on the editors who want to restore that content being sourced to The Sun being suitable for inclusion. That content sourced to The Sun has twice been restored and the editor who restored it says on their talk page that The Sun newspaper is not to everyone's taste but it is a perfectly valid source of information. I disagree that it is a valid source of information per WP:THESUN. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I misread who was who. But again I remind that the content I support is just that "he was in the Marines", not with whom. And again, this is Guardian (green on WP:PRS as generally reliable for facts) not Sun. It's just like any bio article, where we include simple details of personal and educational background, not just major career stages, notable activities, or their eventual aspects that relate to personal notability. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)