|
How can the descendants of the Duke of Clarence be considered the legitimate claimants to the throne, when Clarence was attainted, as were his children? RickK 03:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Clarence was born legitimate, as were all his children. Deb 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that he was born legitimiate, he was attainted, and that denies him or his progeny rights to succeed. RickK 02:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I know that. You asked why the article described him as "legitimate", and I told you. Deb 11:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Operative word is "claimints". They have no "legitimate" claim to the throne. RickK 01:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- Operative word is "legitimate". The article doesn't use the phrase "legitimate claimants". I suppose it's possible it may have said that some time in the past, but not when you asked the question. Deb 16:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
____
"It is suggested that the real father may have been an archer called Blaybourne." Note the use of the passive of non-attribution in this statement. Wetman 13:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
POV?
OK, I'm certainly no historian, but I'd like to query the neutrality of the "Consequences of illegitimacy" section. This section presents a rebuttal of the claims of a TV programme, and presents the rebuttal as fact. Quotes: "the documentary is factually inaccurate", "the programme suddenly rushes into stating (wrongly) that...", "The reason the makers of the documentary go down the wrong track...", "This is where the programme appears to neglect important facts." and so on.
I see two cases. (1) The position advocated by the documentary has so few adherents that there is no dispute that needs to be NPOV'd. In which case there is also no need for a nine-paragraph rebuttal of a position that nobody holds. So I presume (2), that the position advocated by the documentary is held by (at least) a non-negligible minority, in which case we need to reword for NPOV.
Does this seem reasonable? — Matt 20:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. The section on the possible illegitimacy of Edward is far too long. The problem, I feel, (dare I say this?) is that this article has been "got at" by the Ricardian element. Because of an earlier debate as to whether Richard III claimed Edward IV was illegitimate in making his own claim on the throne, someone tried to prove that Edward IV had been illegitimate in order to vindicate Richard, and then someone else spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove the opposite, possibly with a similar aim. This is one of those historical mysteries, a bit like "Did George III marry Hannah Lightfoot?", on which too much time has been spent - or at least, too much for an encyclopedia. But take care when you attempt to NPOV, because there are a lot of people out there with axes to grind.
The rebuttal is presumably presented as fact because it is fact, as it's simply a matter of law. I'm sure many people who watched the television programme believed it, which is why a lengthy rebuttal is useful (if not necessary), but NPOV only applies to opinions, not legal facts. The claims made in the programme are effectively "pseudo-law", which any real lawyer in Britain will tell you is utter nonsense. (And the fact remains that, regardless of the exact nature of the law concerning legitimacy, the current occupant of the Throne is determined by the Act of Settlement 1701, not by legitimate descent from mediaeval kings.) Proteus (Talk) 13:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK, but have a read of this section from NPOV:
- If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. A lot of articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization--for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
- We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible. Let's present all competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, on the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. If we can't do that, we will probably write stuff with so much contempt that subsequent edits are going to have a hard time doing anything but veiling it.
- Do you believe that the "Consequences of illegitimacy" section presents the competing views sympathetically? — Matt 13:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It could probably do with being less condescending and more objective, but to present this "hypothesis" as anything other than utterly wrong would be misleading to the reader. Proteus (Talk) 15:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It would, however, be NPOV. — Matt 15:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Stop being so ridiculous. Many people in the UK believe that Arson in Her Majesty's Dockyards and Treason are capital offences. They aren't. The death penalty for those crimes has been abolised. It is not POV to state this in an article - it's simply the truth. We'd look absurd if we presented the situation as anything other than a popular misunderstanding. You seem to be suggesting that the NPOV policy mandates that we give as much credibility to these beliefs as to the actual state of affairs. That's simply ridiculous, I'm afraid. NPOV does not overrule objective truth. This isn't a "dispute", it's simply ignorance, and should be treated as such. Proteus (Talk) 16:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, hey...chill! And please avoid personal attacks. I'm not suggesting that we give equal credibility to this or that claim. What I am suggesting is that we "give credibility" to neither, in the following sense: we refrain from labelling either position as "objective truth" or "utterly wrong", but we describe the different positions. For example:
- Although it is a fascinating study of alternate history, the documentary is factually inaccurate, and we can safely say that as of 2004 the monarch on the English throne is a legitimate ruler.
- Could be reworded something like:
- Most historians disagree with the thesis of the documentary, arguing that it is factually inaccurate. Furthermore, the critics argue, for a variety of other reasons, we can safely say that the current monarch on the English throne is the legitimate ruler.
- Note how, without taking sides, the dispute is described neutrally in a way that leaves the reader with the understanding that this is a fringe theory (say). — Matt 16:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But don't you both agree that the whole section on the illegitimacy theory is way out of proportion to the rest of the article? And isn't that in itself POV? Deb 18:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
|
