Talk:Prince William, Duke of Gloucester

message: :Image:QuAn Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a fair use rationale for this article's usage to the image's description page. Others are welcome to improve upon it. —Adavidb 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:QuAn Arms.png 

message: William, Duke of Gloucester is in categories English and British princes and Scottish princes. Was he created prince of England and Scotland? He surely didn't become prince of England and Scotland on birth, since he was neither son nor a male-line grandson of English/Scottish monarch. And what about his title Duke of Gloucester? Was he really Duke of Gloucester? Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody responded in two days, so I'll remove him from those categories. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English and Scottish prince? 

message: My edit summaries were detailed enough to merit an explanation better than "no it isn't". Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1698 Kneller is the highest resolution image on commons. DrKiernan (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: An IP editor recently removed all references that the article made to the subject as simply "Gloucester", using what the associated edit descriptions suggest as original research for the reasons.  Dukes are named after places, and while I agree that use of just the place name seems overly familiar and informal for an encylopedia article, their removal is not properly because "people aren't places".  As shown in this style guide, particularly for the lower titles of marquess and earl, the people holding the title are/were referred to informally as simply the place, by those most familiar with them. —ADavidB 02:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gloucester 

message: As of Nov 29 2019 11am New York time article contains the following sentence" Corporal punishment was usual at the time, and such treatment would not have been considered harsh."
That is not encyclopedic. It might be in an article on what was and what wasn't considered harsh in some bygone era. Its intent (a very immoral intent) is to APOLOGIZE and EXCUSE the conduct described in the preceding sentences. It would be like having, in an article on George Washington, "Washington was guilty of slave-owning" to be followed by the sentence "But really, so were a lot of people in Virginia at that time, all of whom would be considered 'normal' by the standards of the day. Slave-owning wasn't considered immoral in the Virginia of this time". What was and wasn't considered moral in some bygone age is not encyclopedically relevant. This child was brutally beaten, full stop, end of story. Washington owned slaves, full stop, end of story. We readers are perfectly capable of deciding what to think of these facts without being told by some snob what people of the time thought of these facts. Moral relativity is anti-encyclopedic. It's not Wikipedia's job to plead excuses for past conduct that OBJECTIVELY fails to meet OBJECTIVE (not socially-evolving) standards of morality because the people who perpetrated them did some other things in their lives that were not as bad as their most barbarous conduct.74.64.104.99 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've ever read a more anti-historical post than that. Context and moral relativism are pillars of the historical sciences. There is no such thing as "objective moral standards." They should always be taken into consideration and are encyclopedic as such. Sira Aspera (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree. Context is important. Such as the context, say, of how many people in Virginia owned slaves (very few), the proportion of people who didn't (very many), whether at the time there was an anti-slavery movement (there was), who was Washington (a wealthy landowning aristocrat), how many people had political power or even a vote (a tiny minority). DrKay (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non encyclopedic sentence