Prince John of the United Kingdom has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 29, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Princes John's eldest brother Edward VIII referred to him as "little better than an animal." Whatever the accuracy that time and sentiment has displaced, can there not be something other than the sentimental hagiography and internets-ASD diagnoses that proliferate even here? It seems so easy for the ignorant, cushioned by their short-bus-joke conditioned mentalities and their self-ascribed "I'm Asberger's me - cos I like Star Wars" nonsense to fail to understand anything about the problems Prince John may really have suffered - especially those that would have necessitated him being removed from others, especially being subjected to the public eye. No - it never occurs to any of you that he may have been prone to masturbating uncontrollably in public, for example - of course none of you have any idea what it is like for an adolescent with such disabilities, never mind the need to ever contemplate such. None of which is encyclopedic any more than the gushing 'nature's innocent special child' bullshit portrayed and endorsed so enthusiatically here. Plutonium27 ( talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The first line of the article states that his epilepsy was the sole reason for him being hidden from the world. Was that really the only reason? Is there evidence of him having any other problems? Werdnawerdna ( talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Why should the material about The Lost Prince be removed? The article on Michael Oher, for example, includes a comparable passage about The Blind Side. john k ( talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
For those who may be wondering, we're discussing my removal of this:
...in favor of this:
And now back to our regularly scheduled programme, already in progress...
References
The channel 4 documentary "The Lost Prince" showed photographic evidence that the Prince John was at his grandfather's funeral in 1910, and was frequently seen in public until the First World War. This article seems inaccurate because mentions him mostly being shut up at Wood Farm. 74.69.11.229 ( talk) 19:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: EEng ( talk · contribs) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Final evaluation: Passed as GA. (I still have to do other formalities elsewhere -- give me an hour or two.) EEng ( talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I did some light copyediting of this article about two years ago -- mostly removed some pop culture trivia -- anyway the article's been almost completely rewritten and expanded recently. I believe this doesn't disqualify me from doing the review. If I hear no objections in a day or two I'll get started. EEng ( talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me say first that I have every expectation the article will pass easily, so I'm starting with what I suspect will be the few problem areas. I'm unconvinced of the PD status of the following two inages. Alex, can you set me straight in my thinking, or get advice at an appropriate noticeboard?
Nothing's happening there. I think we're out of luck. I don't see any choice but for you to mark the image for deletion at Commons. Sorry. EEng ( talk) 13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There will probably be lots of little changes to the article during this process, and there's something I like to do to prepared for that, which is to add a linebreak between each sentence. This doesn't change the rendered page as the reader sees it, but it makes diffs much, much smaller and easier to understand. I'm bringing this up here because it drives some people crazy at first, but you get used to it. I'll demonstrate in the article -- feel free to object and revert if it really bugs you. EEng ( talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Except as noted (and so far none are noted) I don't see these as a bar to GA if tagged as suggested. Intersperse your thoughts.
2. If someone looks it up in The Times and sees the material there, then the cite can be changed to The Times. In the meantime we can only cite where we saw it; the better source needed acts a reminder. One good approach is to cite "Demoskoff (www.blah.com), better source needed citing The Times, 18 January 1901".
3. Every kind of source has its reliability strengths and weaknesses, but I think we're agreed for now that the BBC doc is good enough for our purposes here. (I only suggested added better source needed because you seemed to have some slight reservation about it.)
Let me say it sure is a pleasure working with someone who doesn't take umbrage at everything. My copyedits haven't upset you? Not even a teensy bit? EEng ( talk) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I've solved the issues, hopefully. I've also changed the image. As for the scorecard, why are the reliability of the sources and neutrality of the article still being reviewed?
Alex (
talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I'd really appreciate it if you stopped editing the page over and over again, virtually changing the content completely and adding citation needed templates to text you've written. If there are issues, please bring them up here. Thanks,
Alex (
talk) 21:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
We can talk about most of this after GA is done (and we're almost done -- I don't think I've said right out that I was thrilled to see your new version of the article -- great improvement over what was there before).
My remaining concern for GA is still the two statements, (1) "Much of the existing information ... is based on hearsay and rumor" and (2) "In reality ... treatment was usual for the time." Don't misunderstand me -- I have no doubt that (1) is true, and would be surprised if (2) isn't also true too. But both these statements are essentially taking sides with certain sources over other sources, and even that's OK if the sources we "endorse" are clearly authoritative compared to the others. So let's take these two statements one at a time:
@ EEng: Sorry for replying, but I'm having a busy week. I'll add the quote during the weekend. Cheers, Alex ( talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not true that his "seclusion has subsequently been brought forward as evidence for the inhumanity of the royal family". Seclusion is not neglect, but the reverse. It is desirable for members of the royal family to be brought up out of the public limelight. Royalcourtier ( talk) 22:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
In all honesty this article seems to be trying VERY HARD to force feed the Autism angle to us. Would be nice if we had an article free from bias and agenda pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.104.9 ( talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
GeeBee60 ( talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The article currently says:
Contrary to the belief that he was hidden from the public from an early age, Prince John for most of his life was a "fully-fledged member of the family", appearing frequently in public until after his eleventh birthday.[11]
In 1912 Prince George, who was John's closest sibling, began St Peter's Court Preparatory School at Broadstairs. The following summer, The Times reported that he would not attend Broadstairs the following term, and that his parents had not decided whether to send him to school at all. After the outbreak of World War I, he rarely saw his parents, who were often away on official duties, and his siblings, who were either at boarding school or in the military. Prince John slowly disappeared from the public eye and no official portraits of him were commissioned after 1913.[11]
Both these details seems to be sourced to the Channel 4 documentary which I'm not going to try and view but these seems to be a contradiction or at least a poor wording here. I'd interpret the second paragraph to mean from ~1913, he "slowly disappeared from the public eye". But the earlier paragraph seems to suggest he was "appearing frequently in public" until after 12 July 1916 which is a weird if he was slowly disappearing from 1913. There was obviously an abrupt sudden change in 1916 when he was sent away but I sort of think the latter paragraph is more likely to be true and the former is an oversimplification. I wonder if it's better to just remove the bit after the comma, and maybe merge the two paragraphs and then re-jig the lead (which also mentions the eleventh birthday bit). But we'll need someone who knows the documentary to help. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The note #2 claiming that George V said his father was afraid of his mother, he was afraid of his father, etc, etc. has not been proven to have actually been said by George. In fact, something that George DID say when his father died was that he had lost his best friend. That doesn't sound like someone who was afraid of his father. Also, if you look at photos of him with his children, you can see that they ALL have genuine smiles on their faces. His kids certainly didn't look like they were afraid of him in any way, and he looked like he cared very deeply for his children. This fake quote should not be used as any kind of source or proof of anything. It is completely unproven that he said it, and the known facts do not support the statement. 76.202.192.102 ( talk) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Prince John of the United Kingdom has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 29, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Princes John's eldest brother Edward VIII referred to him as "little better than an animal." Whatever the accuracy that time and sentiment has displaced, can there not be something other than the sentimental hagiography and internets-ASD diagnoses that proliferate even here? It seems so easy for the ignorant, cushioned by their short-bus-joke conditioned mentalities and their self-ascribed "I'm Asberger's me - cos I like Star Wars" nonsense to fail to understand anything about the problems Prince John may really have suffered - especially those that would have necessitated him being removed from others, especially being subjected to the public eye. No - it never occurs to any of you that he may have been prone to masturbating uncontrollably in public, for example - of course none of you have any idea what it is like for an adolescent with such disabilities, never mind the need to ever contemplate such. None of which is encyclopedic any more than the gushing 'nature's innocent special child' bullshit portrayed and endorsed so enthusiatically here. Plutonium27 ( talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The first line of the article states that his epilepsy was the sole reason for him being hidden from the world. Was that really the only reason? Is there evidence of him having any other problems? Werdnawerdna ( talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Why should the material about The Lost Prince be removed? The article on Michael Oher, for example, includes a comparable passage about The Blind Side. john k ( talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
For those who may be wondering, we're discussing my removal of this:
...in favor of this:
And now back to our regularly scheduled programme, already in progress...
References
The channel 4 documentary "The Lost Prince" showed photographic evidence that the Prince John was at his grandfather's funeral in 1910, and was frequently seen in public until the First World War. This article seems inaccurate because mentions him mostly being shut up at Wood Farm. 74.69.11.229 ( talk) 19:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: EEng ( talk · contribs) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Final evaluation: Passed as GA. (I still have to do other formalities elsewhere -- give me an hour or two.) EEng ( talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I did some light copyediting of this article about two years ago -- mostly removed some pop culture trivia -- anyway the article's been almost completely rewritten and expanded recently. I believe this doesn't disqualify me from doing the review. If I hear no objections in a day or two I'll get started. EEng ( talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me say first that I have every expectation the article will pass easily, so I'm starting with what I suspect will be the few problem areas. I'm unconvinced of the PD status of the following two inages. Alex, can you set me straight in my thinking, or get advice at an appropriate noticeboard?
Nothing's happening there. I think we're out of luck. I don't see any choice but for you to mark the image for deletion at Commons. Sorry. EEng ( talk) 13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There will probably be lots of little changes to the article during this process, and there's something I like to do to prepared for that, which is to add a linebreak between each sentence. This doesn't change the rendered page as the reader sees it, but it makes diffs much, much smaller and easier to understand. I'm bringing this up here because it drives some people crazy at first, but you get used to it. I'll demonstrate in the article -- feel free to object and revert if it really bugs you. EEng ( talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Except as noted (and so far none are noted) I don't see these as a bar to GA if tagged as suggested. Intersperse your thoughts.
2. If someone looks it up in The Times and sees the material there, then the cite can be changed to The Times. In the meantime we can only cite where we saw it; the better source needed acts a reminder. One good approach is to cite "Demoskoff (www.blah.com), better source needed citing The Times, 18 January 1901".
3. Every kind of source has its reliability strengths and weaknesses, but I think we're agreed for now that the BBC doc is good enough for our purposes here. (I only suggested added better source needed because you seemed to have some slight reservation about it.)
Let me say it sure is a pleasure working with someone who doesn't take umbrage at everything. My copyedits haven't upset you? Not even a teensy bit? EEng ( talk) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I've solved the issues, hopefully. I've also changed the image. As for the scorecard, why are the reliability of the sources and neutrality of the article still being reviewed?
Alex (
talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I'd really appreciate it if you stopped editing the page over and over again, virtually changing the content completely and adding citation needed templates to text you've written. If there are issues, please bring them up here. Thanks,
Alex (
talk) 21:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
We can talk about most of this after GA is done (and we're almost done -- I don't think I've said right out that I was thrilled to see your new version of the article -- great improvement over what was there before).
My remaining concern for GA is still the two statements, (1) "Much of the existing information ... is based on hearsay and rumor" and (2) "In reality ... treatment was usual for the time." Don't misunderstand me -- I have no doubt that (1) is true, and would be surprised if (2) isn't also true too. But both these statements are essentially taking sides with certain sources over other sources, and even that's OK if the sources we "endorse" are clearly authoritative compared to the others. So let's take these two statements one at a time:
@ EEng: Sorry for replying, but I'm having a busy week. I'll add the quote during the weekend. Cheers, Alex ( talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not true that his "seclusion has subsequently been brought forward as evidence for the inhumanity of the royal family". Seclusion is not neglect, but the reverse. It is desirable for members of the royal family to be brought up out of the public limelight. Royalcourtier ( talk) 22:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
In all honesty this article seems to be trying VERY HARD to force feed the Autism angle to us. Would be nice if we had an article free from bias and agenda pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.104.9 ( talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
GeeBee60 ( talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The article currently says:
Contrary to the belief that he was hidden from the public from an early age, Prince John for most of his life was a "fully-fledged member of the family", appearing frequently in public until after his eleventh birthday.[11]
In 1912 Prince George, who was John's closest sibling, began St Peter's Court Preparatory School at Broadstairs. The following summer, The Times reported that he would not attend Broadstairs the following term, and that his parents had not decided whether to send him to school at all. After the outbreak of World War I, he rarely saw his parents, who were often away on official duties, and his siblings, who were either at boarding school or in the military. Prince John slowly disappeared from the public eye and no official portraits of him were commissioned after 1913.[11]
Both these details seems to be sourced to the Channel 4 documentary which I'm not going to try and view but these seems to be a contradiction or at least a poor wording here. I'd interpret the second paragraph to mean from ~1913, he "slowly disappeared from the public eye". But the earlier paragraph seems to suggest he was "appearing frequently in public" until after 12 July 1916 which is a weird if he was slowly disappearing from 1913. There was obviously an abrupt sudden change in 1916 when he was sent away but I sort of think the latter paragraph is more likely to be true and the former is an oversimplification. I wonder if it's better to just remove the bit after the comma, and maybe merge the two paragraphs and then re-jig the lead (which also mentions the eleventh birthday bit). But we'll need someone who knows the documentary to help. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The note #2 claiming that George V said his father was afraid of his mother, he was afraid of his father, etc, etc. has not been proven to have actually been said by George. In fact, something that George DID say when his father died was that he had lost his best friend. That doesn't sound like someone who was afraid of his father. Also, if you look at photos of him with his children, you can see that they ALL have genuine smiles on their faces. His kids certainly didn't look like they were afraid of him in any way, and he looked like he cared very deeply for his children. This fake quote should not be used as any kind of source or proof of anything. It is completely unproven that he said it, and the known facts do not support the statement. 76.202.192.102 ( talk) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)