This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lord Mountbatten article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 27, 2012, August 27, 2016, and June 25, 2017. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
I've added the link:
Under further reading.
The above is just a book review. The book is THE MOUNTBATTENS: Their Lives and Loves by Andrew Lownie at http://www.themountbattens.com/ This is obviously going to be controversial and a long term discussion. I have no taste for either right now, but figure that the conversation should get started.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 12:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The FBI dossier is explicit in naming his preference as “boys”. Only Rupert Murdoch’s Times attempted to pass off Mountbatten’s paedophilia as merely "Lust for young men". -- 91.54.1.150 ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
No evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office. FDW777 ( talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Highest honorific prefixes and titles are included in Infobox, and b) "His excellency" (if correct in the first place) is highest? FDW777 ( talk) 09:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I do not have access to the sources but there are some concerns to consider.
"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."
"Accounts differ on the future which Mountbatten desired for Kashmir."
"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."
@ EEng: 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)
Should the title of the " Sexuality" section be renamed to include mention of the pedophilia accusations? Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 21:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Homosexuality (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Pedophilia (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Including them both under "sexuality" doesn't conflate anythingper EEng and specifically this text conflates nothing and many allegations iro young boys appear to be particularly tenuous and hearsay. Pincrete ( talk) 18:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved to
Lord Mountbatten. Although this discussion resulted in a clear consensus against the original proposal for
Louis Mountbatten, the title "Lord Mountbatten" was also proposed in the discussion and attracted several arguments in its favor. It was argued that Lord Mountbatten is the figure's
WP:COMMONNAME, as well as more
WP:CONCISE. It was also argued that this figure was overwhelmingly the best known
figure to hold the "Lord Mountbatten" title, thus making the standalone title preferable under
WP:NCPEER. The principal opposition to "Lord Mountbatten" came on the grounds of
WP:CONSISTENT: specifically, it was argued that the article title should be consistent with other holders of the "Earl Mountbatten" title, or with other British peers more broadly. Though this argument is a sound one, the arguments in favor of "Lord Mountbatten" were grounded in a wider range of policy, leading me to find a consensus to adopt
Lord Mountbatten. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
ModernDayTrilobite (
talk •
contribs)
16:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma →
Louis Mountbatten – Move to match policy.
WP:COMMONNAME is most certainly not the tortuous and tautological "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma".
WP:NCBRITPEER states [use the title except] for 1) Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell").
, and also 2) When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron.
Lord Louis Mountbatten would also be an acceptable title.
Bastun
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!
11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
mountbatten. Precedent in RMs for Lord Byron (2010), Lady Gregory (2021), Lord Dunsany (2021), and Lord Kelvin (2023). Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron.Maybe you don't think "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten" is tautological, maybe it isn't in the strictest sense of the word, but it's certainly silly, repetitive, and not what someone will type into a search engine. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lord Mountbatten article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 27, 2012, August 27, 2016, and June 25, 2017. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
I've added the link:
Under further reading.
The above is just a book review. The book is THE MOUNTBATTENS: Their Lives and Loves by Andrew Lownie at http://www.themountbattens.com/ This is obviously going to be controversial and a long term discussion. I have no taste for either right now, but figure that the conversation should get started.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 12:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The FBI dossier is explicit in naming his preference as “boys”. Only Rupert Murdoch’s Times attempted to pass off Mountbatten’s paedophilia as merely "Lust for young men". -- 91.54.1.150 ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
No evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office. FDW777 ( talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Highest honorific prefixes and titles are included in Infobox, and b) "His excellency" (if correct in the first place) is highest? FDW777 ( talk) 09:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I do not have access to the sources but there are some concerns to consider.
"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."
"Accounts differ on the future which Mountbatten desired for Kashmir."
"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."
@ EEng: 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)
Should the title of the " Sexuality" section be renamed to include mention of the pedophilia accusations? Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 21:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Homosexuality (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Pedophilia (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Including them both under "sexuality" doesn't conflate anythingper EEng and specifically this text conflates nothing and many allegations iro young boys appear to be particularly tenuous and hearsay. Pincrete ( talk) 18:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved to
Lord Mountbatten. Although this discussion resulted in a clear consensus against the original proposal for
Louis Mountbatten, the title "Lord Mountbatten" was also proposed in the discussion and attracted several arguments in its favor. It was argued that Lord Mountbatten is the figure's
WP:COMMONNAME, as well as more
WP:CONCISE. It was also argued that this figure was overwhelmingly the best known
figure to hold the "Lord Mountbatten" title, thus making the standalone title preferable under
WP:NCPEER. The principal opposition to "Lord Mountbatten" came on the grounds of
WP:CONSISTENT: specifically, it was argued that the article title should be consistent with other holders of the "Earl Mountbatten" title, or with other British peers more broadly. Though this argument is a sound one, the arguments in favor of "Lord Mountbatten" were grounded in a wider range of policy, leading me to find a consensus to adopt
Lord Mountbatten. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
ModernDayTrilobite (
talk •
contribs)
16:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma →
Louis Mountbatten – Move to match policy.
WP:COMMONNAME is most certainly not the tortuous and tautological "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma".
WP:NCBRITPEER states [use the title except] for 1) Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell").
, and also 2) When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron.
Lord Louis Mountbatten would also be an acceptable title.
Bastun
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!
11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
mountbatten. Precedent in RMs for Lord Byron (2010), Lady Gregory (2021), Lord Dunsany (2021), and Lord Kelvin (2023). Hameltion ( talk | contribs) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron.Maybe you don't think "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten" is tautological, maybe it isn't in the strictest sense of the word, but it's certainly silly, repetitive, and not what someone will type into a search engine. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)