Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Having issues with "had issue"

Hmm, racking my brain for what "had issue" means... faintly remember "had children". Not sure.

So... do "royalty" articles absolutely have to use the "royalty"-mandated (if such) obscure or at least non-understandable term for "to have offspring"? ("royalty" in quotes because there's no such thing in Germany, where I live)

I'm not sure which "guideline" to invoke here (and I wouldn't anyway), but I'm pretty sure WP wants to and should be understandable for everyone, not just those who know "the lingo" (the terminology that royalty/aristocracy-buffs (feel they have to) use)

jae 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that having issue refers specifically to children who are eligible to hold the throne. I could easily be wrong, though. Atropos 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope much simpler than that. 'Issue'='(biological) children', regardless of whether they are in line to inherit anything, or even legitimate. Step-children and adopted children, however, are not 'issue'. It is the correct term used in genealogy - it's by no means restricted to royalty. Indisciplined (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Titles (again...)

I think that the current Titles section is wrong, but I'm not 100% sure so thought I'd ask here first.

It appears from the official website of the Order of the Garter that he was knighted on 19th November 1947. According to the London Gazette, he was granted the style HRH by letters patent on the same day (and, it appears, subsequently to receipt of the knighthood).

I think that his titles should therefore be:

• 10 June 1921–18 March 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
• 18 March–19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten RN
• 19 November–19 November 1947: Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten KG, RN
• 19 November–20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten KG, RN
• 20 November 1947–22 February 1957: His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
• 22 February 1957–: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Agreed? I'm a bit unconvinced by the ugliness of Lieutenant HRH Sir, but that would appear to be correct. Your input appreciated. ^talkGiler 13:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No complaints? Good! Then I shall be bold. ^talkGiler 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

None except to point out Lt HRH Sir doesn't strike me as correct either – methinks HRH outranks the other two – certainly outranks Sir, and, although Lt HRH isn't unheard-of, I should think it can be omitted DBD 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant is a rank, HRH is a style. Isn't Sir a style as well? If so, then Sir would not be used as HRH outranks it and Lieutenant may be included as a rank. Charles 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Knights are entitled to use the prefix 'Sir'. Knights when elevated to the peerage use the prefix appropriate to their rank in the peerage and drop the use of the prefix 'Sir'. Military ranks are correctly used in conjunction with the prefix of a knight or peer. Royal rank, whilst not part of the peerage, has the same relationship to knighthoods - ie, when a person attains royal rank, they adopt the prefix of that rank and drop the prefix 'Sir'. Thus in the brief window of time between Prince Philip becoming a member of the Royal Family and his creation as Duke of Edinburgh, his correct style was Lieutenant His Royal Highness Philip Mountbatten, KG, RN. It should be noted that 'style' refers to the complete description, not to specific components of the description thus 'Sir' is a prefix, KG is a postnominal, etc. Debrett's Correct Form was consulted to confirm this advice - I hope it helps shed further light on the subject. --AusTerrapin 16:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't correct, as the announcement of his ennoblement in the London Gazette shows: "The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 20th instant, to confer the dignity of a Duke of the United Kingdom upon Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of BARON GREENWICH, of Greenwich in the County of London, EARL OF MERIONETH, and DUKE OF EDINBURGH." Proteus (Talk) 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial remarks

The section was recently changed a bit. After looking through the references I found that there was a reference to him being called Phil the Greek but the only person that I could see calling him The Hun was his mother-in-law. However, there seems to me to be no relationship between his remarks and the "Phil the Greek" nickname, which would probably be because of his birth, so I removed it. I also noticed that the sentence "His comments are often taken with a pinch of salt in the UK and as characteristic of his sense of humour." is not cited and added a fact tag. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of full styles

I have restored the full styles that I previously added. Having noted WP:BRSG, I conceded that these more appropriately belong under a heading of styles rather than titles. I would be rather disappointed if these were removed en masse again as I believe they add value (error correction welcome). In particular they help identify the evolution of HRH's style over time, identify the postnominal entitlements actually adopted (eg CD has not been adopted) and help clarify the full style used in practice as opposed to the style required for WP conformity which is used elsewhere in the article. Of note British royals do use postnominals in their full style (see Debrett's Correct Form and Burke's Peerage). On the most formal occasions these would be spelled out using the full styles of the respective orders, etc. For simplicity, I have left them with postnominals as this is the most common form. For another example where this has been done on WP, refer to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.--AusTerrapin 15:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there sources citing which post-nominals he does or does not use?--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Both Debrett's Correct Form and Burke's Peerage provide the list of postnominals in day to day usage and the link above to Burke's Peerage is to his page. AusTerrapin 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Are the listings only for post-nominals used in the UK? I can't imagine that if they were used in Canada that "CD" would be left out or that in Papua New Guinea "GCL" would be omitted. What I'm worried about is that the current list isn't from the point of view of all countries (I'm primarily concerned about Commonwealth realms).--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'AC' is an Australian honour and 'QSO' is a New Zealand honour. As I understand it, the list supplied (and quoted in the sources previously cited) is that which Prince Philip uses on a day to day basis. I haven't been able to discover the rationale for why post-nominals from some Commonwealth countries are used on a day to day basis and others aren't. I agree that when in Canada or in relation to Canadian matters he would add 'CD' and that a similar situation would apply in other countries that have conferred honours and decorations with a post-nominal entitlement. The full list is supplied at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. If you are concerned about POV, then the solution would be to create separate chronological lists for each other country in which he uses a different style to that which he uses on a day to day basis, eg 'Styles used in Canada'. Alternatively, a qualifier could be added at the bottom of the existing list pointing out that this is the list of styles that were in common usage but that in selected countries, a different form may be used. It would be incorrect and misleading, however, to turn the existing list into a compilation of every post-nominal acquired from every source as they are never used in that fashion. AusTerrapin 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Having had a closer look at the Canadian and PNG entitlements, I suspect that the reason that 'CFD' is not used routinely is that it is a long-service award, not an order or decoration in the more usual sense. The same can't be said for 'GCL', here it is possible that as a relatively recent award (Nov 2005), the usual authoritative sources haven't caught up yet. My copy of Debrett's Correct Form is a 2006 edition, so it is quite likely that details of the PNG award to were not available when the manuscript was being prepared for publication. Burke's Peerage I am less certain of, nominally the web page is copyright 2005-07, but this may mean the last revision was 2005 in which case similar comments to above would apply. AusTerrapin 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

World War II

Why is Prince Philip's service in the Second World War not covered in the article, this is a serious defect in the "Early Life" section.90.240.178.233 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1936-1947

What happened during this period? did he serve in the war? seems an odd omission? (if it is in there it's not obvious) --Fredrick day 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Omission is now fixed. AusTerrapin 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich

Why exactly was Philip created Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich? I understand that as a Prince Consort he needed a title, but wouldn't just Duke of Edinburgh suffice? Känsterle 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Because higher peers are almost without exception created not only their highest peerage, but also a few lower ones, which they themselves don't use, but their eldest son and heir apparent may – for instance Viscount Linley holds that title by courtesy from his father Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, who, besides being Earl of Snowdon is also Viscount Linley. However, in Philip's case, his heir-apparent, and his heir-apparent, already have much, much higher titles (Prince of Wales and Prince) Is that at all clear? DBD 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do know that high peers usually also hold lower ones that are used by the heir-apparent, but as you say yourself, this is not the case here. So why are those titles needed? Or is it just a matter of tradition? Känsterle 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The latter, definitely DBD 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Affairs

Why is there nothing on all the affairs he has had. Hes been with loads of wimmin, in all the papers and that. Princess Pea Face 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry – "wimmin"? Tsk. DBD 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's 'women'. GoodDay 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if it's been "in all the papers and that" it should be easy to find reliable sources. --John 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because we're an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. Please remember the WP:BLP applies to Royals, too. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Remarks concerning others

The distinction between insensitivity and ignorance is a very important one to make.

Describing Prince Philip’s remarks as being ‘insensitive’ clearly suggests that the comments are in themselves somehow true and that his only error is in expressing them. I don’t think anyone would seriously take issue with the fact that the majority of his remarks concerning others are, by any objective definition, ignorant of all factual accuracy.

The sentence as a whole has been drafted with a series of apologetic phrases which have no place in an encyclopaedic article. The article must not reflect our personal interpretations of an individual’s reputation or popular perception.

Saying that his remarks as ‘can come across’ as ignorant and racist etc also clearly suggests that his intention was always somehow otherwise, and that the comments merely give the impression of being ignorant to those that choose to view them that way.

Equally, the word ‘blunt’ suggests that the remarks are in themselves somehow accurate and that it is only the directness with which he expresses them that is at fault.

Based on the above, I have corrected the sentence.

Labcoat (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a tweak – agreeable? DBD 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the edit, but I’m afraid I disagree for the following reasons...

Whilst I personally agree with you that most of the remarks were likely in jest, it is not our place to impose this interpretation upon the reader. The reader must be free to draw their own conclusions.

Additionally, we must also recognise the differences between racism and prejudice. In labelling the remarks ‘prejudicial’, it suggests that Prince Philip has an ongoing problem (i.e prejudice) with those he has addressed in the remarks. By comparison, ‘racist’ indicates that many of the remarks simply centred around racial stereotypes – as indeed they do.

I appreciate that such terms may make for uncomfortable reading for those that admire or follow Prince Philip, but that in itself should not discourage us from using them – especially where such a wealth of evidence attests to their objective accuracy.

Thanks Labcoat (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

House of Mountbatten

Why were questions raised about the Royal House name during Elizabeth II' reign? These questions shouldn't be raised until after Liz's passing. The consort's name didn't matter during Mary I, Anne & Victoria's reigns? Could this be pointed out in the article? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it has been explianed in the article. Philip's uncle, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, raised the issue in the 1950's, and it caused a great deal of controversy. The Queen, therefore, actually issued an Order in Council to sort out the Royal Surname/future name of Royal House issue. That was an extraordinary thing to do, and I don't believe that anything similar happened in the reigns of the previous Queen's you mentioned. (That said, the Order in Council is sometimes read as being ambiguous, so maybe it didn't resolve the issues after all. See the Mountbatten-Windsor article for more information). Indisciplined (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Liz's successor, has the right to gives his/her own proclamation & change the House name. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing is the name used by a particular person or by the British government, another thing is the name used in genealogy and historiography. Male line descendants of Prince Philip will always be members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, no matter what surnames or titles they assume. Barbro Luder (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which languages does he speak fluently?

English, German, Greek, French, Danish?

I once saw an interview with him in perfect German, no accent at all! But he also lived in France and Greece, and was a Danish Prince.. does anybody know more about it? --79.199.13.233 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Being almost entirely of German descent, having most of his relatives in Germany (all his sisters) and having attended school in Germany, he obviously speaks German fluently, if not natively. Barbro Luder (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth and Philip by Charles Higham and Roy Moseley tells me that his first language was English, mainly because his nanny, Nurse Roose, was English, but it was also the first language of both his parents. German and French were Philip's second languages, and he spoke Greek "not at all". There's no mention of Danish, but since neither his parents nor nanny had any close Danish associations, I'd be very surprised if there was any opportunity to learn Danish. There was certainly no need to learn Danish, because he was never going to inherit the Danish throne. But what he did learn from an early age was sign language, in order to communicate with his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, who was deaf from birth. What languages he may have learned in later life, I cannot say. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales also knew some sign language. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

REMOVING controversial remarks

I am going to remove the controversial remarks sections. Whilst I agree that it should be noted that he has made controversial remarks I dont think they should be listed on the page. It is most un-wikipedia-like. Seriously now I cant believe noone got rid of them earlier!Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for goodness sake! If anybody thinks they are all that important perhaps they would like to add a link to wikiquote where they are all listed (and where they belong! --Camaeron (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's role is not to censor. It is to report cited facts of significance, and it is cited fact that he made those remarks. The subject has received controversy for those remarks in the news media and the public sphere, and they are therefore significant to the subject; to remove them would be POV and against Wikipedia policy. —Lowellian (reply) 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Controversial remarks in general. Sure Prince Philip has made some controversial remarks. Who hasn't? These remarks are, however, not his main achievement, and according to all sources, they are not overly exciting and certainly not shocking whatsoever. In my opinion, the question is not whether these remarks are significant or not, but HOW significant they are. In other words: The less significant they are, the less space they should occupy in the article. One other thing: The fact that some of his remarks are perceived as racist, is a matter of interpretation. If there is no clear indication that he really has a racist tendency beyond the fact that, as a member of high aristocracy, he is, of course, elitist, then this should not be mentioned at the beginning of the article, but, if at all, somewhere later. --Bernardoni (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually thank they should be left their, so everyone can know what kind of cold hearted, dried up raisin the guy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 10:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:NPOV. He is a person who has said some things. Where it is verifiable that those things have been said, they may be quoted in the article, without judgement; deciding the meaning of the remarks, and indeed whether or not Prince Philip is a "cold hearted, dried up raisin" is an exercise left for the reader. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a point of view.

That being said, I agree with Cameron. The section should simply redirect to Wikiquote--I can't think of any other royalty articles which have this extensive list of quotes. accordingly, I shall be bold. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all the quotes, and am in the process of editing the Wikiquote page to properly cite them all. This is not POV; such quotes aren't in any other WP royalty articles, and Wikiquote is a much better repository for them anyway. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the remaining sections vaguely alluding to "bad" quotes. If any mention of quotes is to be made, it should be only of those that got significant reaction (positive or negative). Then, the full quote, date, and place should be given, and there should be a NPOV discussion of the reaction. The text wasn't anything close to that, so I removed it. Superm401 - Talk 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put them back, sorry. The lifetime buildup of all of the variously funny, offensive, or merely tasteless things he has said is something of a defining characteristic of the man. The section stays, cited quotes available at Wikiquote for edification. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PrinceOfCanada that this section is entirely essential -- not only because the Prince's gaffes have come to be recognized as characteristic of the man himself, but perhaps no less because these otherwise trivial incidents illustrate an arc of change in the context of the monarchy in British and Commonwealth culture across a span of decades since the Queen's accession. In my view, the value and accuracy of this Wikipedia article would be diminished without some reference to this difficult aspect of the Prince's biography. That said, I wonder if a small tweak isn't needed? Yes, many of his now infamous remarks were immediately construed as offensive; but I wonder if that frank admission shouldn't be balanced by mentioning that other awkward observations were seen as merely odd or off-colour or even funny. Would a citation be strictly necessary to support an additional sentence in this controversial section? --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a citation would be required, otherwise you are interjecting your opinion, POV, and original research. Which is kind of the Trifecta of No ;) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally

I find the pirate outfit somewhat cheesy. Anyone want to have a better go?... It's poorly shopped as well.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.135.159 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Naval service in the 1940s

Twice it's mentioned in the article that Lieutenant Prince Philip served in HMS Cornwallace. There's never been such a ship in the Royal Navy. HMS Cornwallis, perhaps. There was a Cornwallis in WW2 but all my books tell me that she was part of the Royal Indian Navy. A check of the Navy Lists for the time will be helpful.

Lester May 82.35.34.83 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

His biography on the Royal Family's web site says it was HMS Wallace. Proteus (Talk) 13:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

HMS Cornwallis was a Duncan class battleship (Dreadnought) sunk by a U Boat in 1917. HMS Wallace was a Shakespeare class destroyer (sometimes called Leader class) Thornycroft_type_leader and is the correct ship.GDD1000 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Move Shield of Arms

I cannot do, but I do think his shield of arms should be moved to the top or the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politis (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 May 2008

I've looked at it and I'm afraid I don't find myself agreeing. It's part of an item which, if moved, would unbalance the article. It would also give Prince Phillip's arms precedence over the Royal coat of arms which wouldn't be proper. I think it's best left where it is.GDD1000 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Racist Quotes

The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as, "racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups"

Wikipedia's simple one-line definition is "discrimination based on a racial group"

Lets analyze a few of the Prince's remarks:

1. Seeing a shoddily installed fuse box in a high-tech Edinburgh factory, HRH remarked that it looked "like it was put in by an Indian".

   Discrimination based on a racial group. The quote implies Indians are unable to produce high-quality industrial work.

2. To a British student in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

   Discrimination based on a racial group. The quote implies Papua New Guineans are cannibals, playing into the 'island native stereotype'.

3. "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an aeroplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

   Discrimination based on a racial group. The quote implies because the Chinese consume a broader varity of animals, they have no standards about food consumption.

These quotes are not "interpreted" as being racist. They are simply racist. They discriminate and otherwise draw generalized discriminatory conclusions on the basis of race alone, and clearly do so in an offensive manner. Indeed, even the citation for his remarks is for a book that is referred to as a compilation of his racist quotes, not his "interpreted as racist" quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mft1 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am far from an apologist for racist remarks, but there is one very simple thing to remember here: NPOV. 'Racism' is a point of view (one that I happen to agree with on some of his comments; many others (such as the spear-chucking one) have been taken radically out of context). Our aim is Neutral Point of View. I will be reverting your change until you can demonstrate how putting a value judgement on his statements is NPOV. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am well-aware of what "our aim" is. Racism is "a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race." The change does not pass judgment on whether what he said was right or wrong, but rather presents them as they are. By applying an objective definition to a comment, we are not violating NPOV. To say an object was installed by a certain ethnic group because of the way it was done, regardless of whether that was bad or good, is by definition putting certain characteristics specific to a race. Under your logic, we can never say that anyone is making a racist comment. Prince Phillip's quotes (some of them), are by the definition of racism, racist. It is a fact, not an opinion.

Mft1 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand. Saying that X statement is racist is a value judgment, an opinion. As loathsome as such people are, there are people who would say that X is not a racist statement, it is a matter of fact. Therefore the statement that X is racist becomes POV. I may not disagree with you in spirit, but I disagree in the context of Wikipedia. I am sympathetic to what you are trying to say, however this is not the forum. Therefore I am reverting your change--reverting it back would violate what I understand to be the spirit of the 3RR. This is, of course, leaving quite aside the fact that many of Philip's comments are taken out of context. For example, I would point you to the 'spear-chucking' comment. Look up the context and you will quickly understand how the quote has been divorced from its context and therefore how it is misleading to label it as racist. In any case, I have removed all of the comments, and put them in a more appropriate place--Wikiquotes. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not need to be patronized. I completely understand your perspective, and I respectfully disagree that you are interpreting NPOV correctly. In the spirit of compromise, however, I have changed the wording from "interpreted as" to "regarded as". This refrains from labeling the comments directly as racist, but establishes that they are often regarded as such by others.

Mft1 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You may disagree as much as you wish. Until you can show how blanket statements are NPOV, the language will stand as it is. I also find it interesting how you projected 'patronizing' onto anything I said. Also how you completely ignore that many comments are taken wildly out of context. NPOV: know it, live it, do it. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the remarks are, by absolutely any objective definition, racist by the simple fact that they make huge, sweeping generalisations about particular groups. And racism is also, by any objective definition, ignorant. Therefore we shouldn't flinch away from labelling the comments as such simply because they have the potential to embarrass the subject. Labcoat (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

'Many', not 'most'. Blanket sweeping generalizations are a bad idea. Nothing has changed since the last time we had a go-round about this. I'll be reverting now, please don't do this again. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Canada, I am in complete agreement with the sound and logical reasoning applied to this issue by the User Mft1 in the discussion above. The labels 'racist' and 'ignorant' are factually accurate here and their inclusion is proper. You are apparently the only one objecting to their use. I also don't appreciate the vaguely threatening tone of your response to my edit. Labcoat (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion is not factually accurate, because you are making a blanket statement about everything the man has ever said. Just to make things easier, this is what i said 40 days ago. Nothing has changed: 'Racism' is a point of view (one that I happen to agree with on some of his comments; many others (such as the spear-chucking one) have been taken radically out of context). Our aim is Neutral Point of View. I will be reverting your change until you can demonstrate how putting a value judgement on his statements is NPOV.

Okay? Good. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real evidence presented here that Prince Philip discriminates against people on the basis of their ethnic origin, or even that he holds stereotypical views. These "remarks" are merely jokes. There's no evidence that he actually believes all Hungarians have pot-bellies or everyone in Liverpool is a thief. I think people are being over-sensitive about a sense of humour which may not be to everyone's taste.

The three examples given above have been taken beyond a point of reasonable extrapolation by Mft1. For example, the first could be an analogy to Comboy electricians, and the second example is a joke directed against racial stereotyping in which he indicates that Western perceptions of Papua New Guinea as some sort of primitive cannibal island are ludicrous and absurd. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think anyone is trying to label Prince Philip himself a racist. The point is that most of his comments are by objective definition racist in nature. Therefore, whether we interpret them as being intended seriously or otherwise is an irrelevant POV. Labcoat (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't judge full stop. The dictionary quotes are all very well but one would have to judge him about whether to apply the term to him or not. This is why we aren't including it. BLP is also an issue. --Cameron* 10:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're quite correct that we don't judge. The point is that there is no judgment being made here. The comments made by Prince Philip are, by any definition, racist in their formulation. Whether the reader then regards such comments as being 'good' or 'bad', or subsequently views Prince Philip as being a 'racist', remains entirely up to them. Would you be happier if the wording was along the lines of "(the comments) have been interpreted as racist by some"? Labcoat (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I get what you are saying but negative words generally arent used unless sourced. Try adding the word "usurper" to the Oliver Cromwell article. A perfectly true fact, and verifiable but still not added...--Cameron* 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate the example you've used, but I think it's inappropriate here. The word 'racist' isn't being applied to the individual, but rather the nature of his comments. If someone, for instance, was notorious for a long history of homophobic or sexist remarks, would we also shy away from describing those remarks as such (in case they were perceived as being 'negative')? Labcoat (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think generally we represent the facts and let readers make their own decisions. You won't find "He was a bad man" in the Hitler article, even though he was, by most definitions, a bad man. Verifiability, not truth, is often quoted...can you find sources to prove he is a racist? --Cameron* 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is no assertion being made against Prince Philip himself! His comments are, however, unequivocally racist. Using your example, if we were to label Hitler's ideology as being racist in nature, would you also suggest that that was unfair, since we were somehow attributing a negative value to them and that some readers may feel otherwise? Labcoat (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the remarks, none of which are in the article, are racist or considered racist would still need a source. Now I'm not sure if this is a relilable source as I can't seem to find the original AP piece. However, the Cambridge University Students' Union did say that that he makes racist remarks and it appears that Mohamed Al Fayed branded Prince Philip a "Nazi" and a "racist"... CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. All the discussion above is over this series of edits and reversions, is that correct? If so did anybody bother to read the opening section, in particular the last sentence, which is referenced to the first of my links above? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, missed that. It'll have to go as well, per WP:NPOV. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But it depends on Associated Press being a reliable source. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My reading is that it depends on AP reporting on an interpretation, which is relatively verboten in these parts. Has Philip said some offensive things? Yes. Could they be considered as being racist? Yes. Can they factually be stated as being such? No. Why? Because racism--no matter how much I may agree with the interpretation! (and I do in some cases, especially the 'slitty-eyed' remark)--is a value judgement and not a statement of fact.

Fact: X was born on Y date according to Z calendar.

Opinion: X was born on Y date according to Z calendar, which makes him a very jolly fellow!

Similarly. Fact: X said Y, which has "been regarded as offensive and/or based on stereotypes"

Opinion: X said Y, which is racist.

Are we clear yet? To call something 'racist' or 'positive' or 'uplifting' or 'negative' is a value judgement, and that is not what we are here for. We are here for facts. Nothing else. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not saying that he is racist nor that his remarks are racist but that some people find his remarks racist as reported by AP. That is allowed. So the way that it is presented in the opening is OK because the article is just reporting what has been said. However, this would need re-writing as it's not based on the source given. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)