Talk:Royal Burial Ground, Frogmore/Archive 1

message: ::::::::::::Hmm, we need an outsider, somebody who can't be suspected of bias, to come up with the 'footnote content' -- Anybody agree? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "outsider" is familiar with - or familiarises himself with - the complexity of the subject matter. Also, the person should not be in a position to have a nationalistic conflict of interest (which seems to be the driving force of this neverending dispute). --G2bambino (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to bringing in someone previously uninvolved to deal with this, but I'm not willing to accept anything in advance, without knowing what the content of it is.  I think it would be preferable for us to try to come up with a formula that is acceptable to everyone involved.  I don't see that bringing in someone from outside will necessarily help us to all agree on anything.  I will add that I am not sure what would constitute "suspicion of bias."  If it means, as G2 says, someone without a nationalistic conflict of interest, that's fine.  That being said, I don't have a nationalistic conflict of interest (I'm American), and I'm sure I would be an entirely unacceptable "outsider", and be considered to be "biased."  So I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish here - do we simply want someone who hasn't already expressed their opinion about this?  I'm not sure I see how that's especially useful.  john k (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still sticking to accepting a 'neutral/non-Commonwealth member/outsider editor's version - unconditionally. If a self-proclaimed republican can make that leap? There's hope. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would we ensure that an outside party, unaquainted with the subject matter, would not be swayed by G2's tendentious and biased presentation of the facts? After all, G2 has managed to distort untold numbers of articles with his POV. It seems that single-issue obsessives are able to push their agendas far too easily on Wikipedia, perhaps because the rest of us don't care enough. TharkunColl (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The outsider must not be influenced by any of us. By the way, who's going to look for an outsider? Should the 'outsider' be an Administrator? GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But such a person will be so influenced, because G2 will bombard him with "facts", and keep on talking and arguing until everyone else gives up out of boredom. I see no reason why John K should not be the outside arbiter. He is clearly familiar with the subject matter. TharkunColl (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness me; imagine actually wanting to ground ourselves with facts. I think you've just clearly summed up your whole problem: you will not accept verifiable, cited facts. This attitude of yours is exactly what leads to these endless discussions, and runs contrary to Wikipedia policy. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I recommend we get Administrator Owen (whom I found randomly). Checked him out -- He's an anarchist. There's no way any of us can influence him (as he's anti-government). GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyways, that's my nomination for an Arbitrator. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside opinions

message: ::::::::I'm fairly sure that I should not be an outside arbiter or mediator, as I have made my opinions on the subject far too clear to be acceptable to those who disagree with me.  I might add that while I have no politically biases or preconceptions on this subject, it would have to be fairly clear to anyone reading this page that I do have personal biases against G2, derived from previous discussions on similar topics, which ought to be make me unacceptable as any kind of impartial arbiter.  As to GoodDay's suggestion.  I would certainly not think that being an anarchist is any particular recommendation.  If we are to find someone, it should be someone sensible and knowledgeable in the requisite areas, who has not previously expressed an opinion as to the subject.  Such a person might be difficult to find.  Would it not be better to work together on our own to determine the wording of the (unfortunately apparently necessary) footnote?  G2 and I have rarely agreed on any issue of substance relating to this subject, but we have, on occasion, been able to agree on specific wordings, and I think a direct approach is a) most likely to lead to a speedy conclusion; and b) most likely to lead to a conclusion acceptable to all parties.  I made a proposition earlier, to base the text of the footnote on that found in British royal family, specifically: Apart from the United Kingdom, the Queen and other members of the Royal Family regularly perform public duties in the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms in which the Queen is Head of State.  I now revive that suggestion.  I also continue to plead that the current formulation be changed.  I would much rather have "the royal family of the United Kingdom and other commonwealth realms" to the current ridiculous formulation where there is an entire clause in the first sentence of an article about a cemetery devoted to explaining that the people buried in said cemetery are occasionally referred to as the Canadian Royal family.  The current version is embarrassing for everyone involved. john k (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is indeed "embarassing" and does show the POV that G2bambino has. But to the point, I am happy with the footnote suggested by JohnKenney above.--UpDown (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you continue to ignore the question I asked earlier: How can something verifiable and cited be POV? Can't just keep ignoring that as though it isn't there. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three reasons: undue weight, undue weight, and undue weight. Verifiability has nothing to do with POV.  There's all kinds of true statements that shouldn't go into articles, because they give a misleading impression. john k (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verfiability has everything to do with POV, especially in this case. Everyone is bandying about the accusations of POV, as though everything the other party says is made up fantasy. However, the reality is that, in a sense, everyone's right to a degree. But here's where you touch on a very important part of this debate: misleading impressions. Some people state that it's misleading to refer to the Royal Family as anything other than British; others state that to only refer to them as British is misleading. The judgement then comes down to who's view is supported by evidence, and whose is not; as I said below, we need to decide if they are just British or they are not just British. There is evidence to support the latter, and not much evidence to support the former - none, as far as I can see. So, then, which is truly personal POV? Remember, this is not a fight over common usage; everyone admits they're most frequently dubbed the British Royal Family. The issue is whether or not that is actually sufficient to represent accurately the status of the family shared equally amongst sixteen sovereign states. --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your POV comes in when you say that they are only the British Royal Family in the UK, and that on those few occassions they do things in other realms they are not the British Royal Family. This is absurd and ridiculous. And the family is not shared equally. They were born, live and work in Britain, their homeland. TharkunColl (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said they were not the British Royal Family outside of the UK. They are the British Royal Family all the time, as much as they are the Canadian Royal Family all the time. Need I refer you, yet again, to the apt words that someone expressed to you about a similar matter? The point is that when they are in another realm, acting on behalf of that realm, they are not doing so as members of the UK's royal family; they represent that state, not the UK. Thus, they are not just British. --G2bambino (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: But such a person will be so influenced, because G2 will bombard him with "facts".TharkunColl (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, G2 has suppressed the fact that the Secretary General of the Commonwealth recently stated that the 15 realms still retain the British monarch. And a recent Canadian court ruling referred to the Crown as the British Crown, and another advised a person who wished to alter the laws of succession to pursue his claim in the English courts. These examples have simply been ignored, or removed through special pleading. This is not an inbiased presentation of the facts. TharkunColl (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be ridiculous. The court case you refer to is used as a reliable source in a number of articles. Your Secretary General's words aren't suppressed; they just don't, on their own, stand up against the plethora of other evidence that proves your interpretation of his speech to be incorrect.  To maintain your version of the truth, you continuously remove - and I mean simply delete - any verifiable information and associated sources that contradict you. You've at least now admitted that you aren't interested in any facts which undermine your POV. I really feel that until this particular problem is resolved, these disputes really never will end. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just when, precisely, did I "admit" to not being interested in facts? It is you who have consistently shown a bias to those facts that support your POV, ignoring all others. I am merely presenting the other side of the coin. You cannot use facts to build a case of your own, because that is against Wikipedia policy. TharkunColl (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Building a case is not my goal; expressing subtle complexities in an accurate and understandable way is. Until you accept the facts, and stop deleting referenced material, this disruption will go on indefinitely. --G2bambino (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank goodness the realms within the Commonwealth, don't bicker this way. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna get lambasted for this. Is there any possible way we can reach an agreement without G2 and Tharky being involved. I'm getting annoyed with their continous bickering. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm getting sick of having to constantly bicker with him. That's the whole reason I highlighted his statement regarding the use of facts. --G2bambino (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts are crystal clear: G2 will never give up All are equal & Tharky will never give up UK, first among equals -- How's a compromise gonna come out of that? GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're simplifying the case; equal and not-equal depends on context and focus. Thark just refuses to accept that such variances do, in fact, exist. --G2bambino (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a deal is reached, I fear one of you (Tharky or G2) will protest (through edit wars) until being banned. Gentlemen, I hope things don't come to that. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: Congratulations guys; you've made it onto this page. :) No offence is intended. See Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Royal Burial Ground. (And well done for finally coming to a consensus, by the way!) Terraxos (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashamedly and embarrasingly, it is well deserved. LOL, about the 'dead people' line. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! At least I'm famous for something. --G2bambino (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not complaining, but why did I suddenly get a guizzy feeling in my gizzard? GoodDay 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this page gonna have to be locked again? GoodDay 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Thark II, the revenge, keeps up his usual editing habits, it may well be. --G2bambino 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, nobody, save for myself, has really moved on to Commonwealth realm as we decided to do. I tried to start a section there, but, so far, no discussion or other contribution. --G2bambino 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Loner to take his objections to 'Commonwealth realm'. I'll take a peek, too. GoodDay 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lamest edit wars

message: Naivety was my downfall, I honestly thought by correctly showing Wallis was Duchess of Windsor, there'd be no protestations. However, I was reverted faster then Wallis was rejected by Stanley Baldwin. GoodDay 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Look who you're dealing with: Loner, fastest revert in the west. --G2bambino (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

message: Had to break away from the Commonwealth discussion - Does anybody know if all the royals buried here, are British? Is there any members of the English, Scottish, Irish Royal Families. GoodDay 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in as much as there was an Irish Royal Family between 1931 and 1949. Beyond that, Wallis Simpson was certainly American. --G2bambino (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really know, but the article says no. --G2bambino (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''British'' Royal Family??

message: Duchess of Kent redirects to Duke of Kent, which is probably inaccurate.  Could someone know which Duchess it was please put her name in?  Ta. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.  PeterSymonds | talk 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In fact it had been fixed already. But the intent was there. :) PeterSymonds | talk 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Sorry I didn't respond earlier. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchess of Kent? 

message: Royal Burial Ground.  This is a daft name.  Does every minor royal of every Royal Family in the world get to buried here? No, its a cemetery for British petty royals only and the title should reflect that.  I propose Frogmore British royal family cemetery or such like. Bill Reid | Talk 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Petty' is a bit of a loaded term, seeing as the Duke of Windsor is buried there--an important Royal figure in his own right.  Further, the Royal Family refers to it as the Royal Burial Ground, so unless you can provide a couple of citations suggesting that its proper name is Frogmore British blah blah blah, it'll be staying precisely where it is. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Royal burial ground plan.jpg Nominated for Deletion