Talk:Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

message: I am intrigued by the comment "These claims were dismissed[who?] at the time" which editors cite to Andrew Lownie's article in the times of 7 November 2017 and Chris Moore's book "The Kincora Scandal". Both these works seem to be promoting the allegations but neither of them seem to be dismissing them. This little sentence needs a better source. Dormskirk (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegations were rejected by Historical Institution Abuse Inquiry and I have added properly sourced information which I hope readers will find useful. Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

text: This entire section in the article reads as being rather homophobic, honestly. Tabruns2021 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed I lack the ability to do it but there should be two headings: Sexuality and (Allegations of) Child sexual abuse. 51.6.121.6 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not resurrect old threads, start a new one if you must. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of sexual abuse 

message: No evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office. FDW777 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did add provide evidence with the following source from the offical website of the National Assembly of Pakistan: But this was then removed with the comment that no evidence was given. Kinda circular reasoning, huh? Could you please explain why this source was removed or was not good enough? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon I agree with you, but what we can do about it? Wikipedia is not fair, nor does it try to be. Maybe you should report it to WP:ANI? But in the meantime relax. Stress is not your friend.  85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  My error, edit restored. Sciencefish (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I repeat, no evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office (my emphasis). FDW777 (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Also where is the evidence that a) , and b) "His excellency" (if correct in the first place) is highest? FDW777 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FDW777, he wasn't 'His Excellency the Earl Mountbatten of Burma'. He was created Earl Mountbatten of Burma after leaving office. This construction takes a style from one period of his life and puts it together with a title from a different period of his life. It's like writing 'His Serene Highness the Viscount Mountbatten of Burma'. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "His Excellency" 

message: I do not have access to the sources but there are some concerns to consider.
*Currently the 6th paragraph of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma#Last Viceroy of India section:
"When India and Pakistan attained independence at midnight of 14–15 August 1947, Mountbatten was alone in his study at the Viceroy's house saying to himself just before the clock struck midnight that for still a few minutes, he was the most powerful man on Earth."
:He was alone in his study and was saying to himself. The only way this could be known is from his writing or notes so conveys some confusion and needs rewording as from the source or better sourcing. 
*The 7th paragraph states: 
"Accounts differ on the future which Mountbatten desired for Kashmir."
:This begs a  (accounts) tag.
*The same paragraph:
"Pakistani accounts suggest that Mountbatten favoured the accession of Kashmir to India, citing his close relationship to Nehru. Mountbatten's own account says that he simply wanted the maharaja, Hari Singh, to make up his mind."
:Pakistani accounts and Mountbatton's own account use the same three pages from Schofield (2010), pp. 29–31, and it seems this could be narrowed to which page supports the content.  --  Otr500 (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: regarding this reversion: Having the subheading refer to the accusations does not gave credence to them. I changed it to "Sexuality and pedophilia accusations", not "Sexuality and pedophilia". Many Wikipedia articles on people who have been accused of sexual abuse in one form or another have subheadings that mention it. A subheading should let you know what is in the section. Just "Sexuality" certainly does not "cover it" given the section details his alleged homosexuality and his alleged pedophilia. It also suggests that allegedly being a pedophile is part of his sexuality. As it is, the section is homophobic. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Headings are supposed to succinctly (a) give an overview of the article and (b) guide the reader looking for something specific to the right section. While the alleged pedophilia may not be "part" of his sexuality, it's certainly related -- that's why they're in the same section. And someone who has, perhaps, heard of the pedophilia question will correctly suppose the a "Sexuality" section will address it. The one word performs both functions without calling out one particular aspect in particular, as if it's especially important. EEng 17:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly: the section is on alleged homosexuality and pedophilia, so an overview should mention both, and if the reader is specifically looking for the pedophilia accusations then a more specific subheading would be more appropriate. Mountbatten may only be alleged to have abused boys, but pedophilia is not related to homosexuality. (Also, people who have heard pedophilia rumours about him would not necessarily suppose a sexuality section would address it – I, for example, had heard he was an alleged pedophile but not that he was allegedly gay before I first read this article.) Using just the word "Sexuality" as the subheading appears to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia together. The section comes across as homophobic and the last part of your comment reads as if you don't think pedophilia accusations are important. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think putting the paedophilia allegations into the section heading gives them too much WP:WEIGHT. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. EEng 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Disagree. I think it's due and not including it buries it. Many articles with people accused but not convicted of similar include subheadings mentioning it, e.g. Edward Heath ("Allegations of child sexual abuse"), Peter Morrison ("Allegations of child abuse"). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not buried, it's there in the article for anyone to read. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And as for the Heath and Morrison articles, different articles have different needs. In both those cases, those are separate sections on  only the sexual abuse allegations, so naturally those sections' headings will reflect that. EEng 22:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm gay myself so I suggest you give the homophobia bullshit a rest. EEng 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't dispute any point I made. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How about your claim that the Sexuality section is homophobic? I too am gay and I too wish you would give the homophobia bullshit a rest. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And we queens are just not in the mood given recent events. EEng 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Child sexual abuse is not about  sexuality. It is about violent crime. You wouldn’t put general rape allegations here; you would give them a prominent heading. Being attracted to another consenting adult is sexuality. Being attracted to children is a recognised illness. The two should be separated. 51.6.121.6 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not resurrect old threads, start a new one if you must
=== Request for comment ===
Should the title of the "Sexuality" section be renamed to include mention of the pedophilia accusations? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality subheading 

message: Should the title of the "Sexuality" section be renamed to include mention of the pedophilia accusations? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Proposal: Add at the beginning of the section headed “Legacy” the following:
Mountbatten’s legacy has remained largely positive amongst the general public, despite the numerous allegations of child sexual abuse made against him, including by his victims. 
Explanation: Added content. The multiple and widespread allegations are referred to above under heading “Sexuality”. Should be repeated at top of legacy, as this is the most important aspect of his legacy from a public interest / historical perspective. 
Request: I would welcome engagement here. I made the edit but it was removed and I was understandably pointed towards Talk. It is an important edit, so I invite comment first as requested by the deleter. 51.6.121.6 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You need at least one very high quality citation that supports the claim that his legacy is largely positive. I also don't think we should call his accusers "victims" as that would imply that the allegations are true, but they are not proven. I also take issue with this being the most important aspect of his legacy. The most important aspect of his legacy is the independence and partition of India. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: I have archived threads up to the end of 2021, that is to say with no activity after that date. They are at Talk:Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma/Archive 2. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving again 

message: With no discussion, an IP changed the order of his name to put Albert first based on some supposed citation to Queen Victoria's letters or diary. Even if this is a legitimate citation, a reference to one primary source should not supersede the multitude of reference works which list his name the other way (the ODNB, Britannica, Cracroft's peerage, New York Times, etc.). Wikipedia's been spreading misinformation for over a year, this is frustrating. john k (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name