Surely there should be something about his parentage (James Hewitt connection)? Shermozle 10:09, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I put in a sentence, with references, but this was removed by User:Silverhorse. Is this in deference to HRH? I have reinstated it, as I do feel it has a place, as stuff of this sort would usually find its way into equivalent biographical entries on Wikipedia. I say this especially as Diana herself admitted to an affair with Jamie, and the UK press has commented widely on the matter. Ohconfucius 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the affair and the fact the he looks a bit like James Hewitt, I feel the sentence should have been left. However, I am sure it is hurtful to Prince Henry as well as Prince William. Therefore, perhaps that is why it was removed.

Due to the fact that he looks nothing like Hewitt, it should be removed just on that score alone. Luckily, we don't need to rely on things that some people refuse to see.FlaviaR (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal has nothing to do with "hurtful" it has to do with sources. Find a reliable source that shows this is a mainstream concern/issue that is being discussed and it can go in. But web tittle-tattle, and the speculation of unqualified people, does not count.--Doc^g 09:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, the fact that the BBC has reported on it certainly makes it worthy of inclusion, and the BBC is certainly a "reliable source" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2273498.stm RockStarSheister (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the Daily Mail: "Most members of his Household Cavalry Regiment are already in Basra on a six-month tour of duty. The Prince is now expected to be given a role in Iraq which would rarely involve him leaving the confines of British bases. He is no longer going to be utilised as a reconnaissance troop commander - the job he trained for - as this is now considered too dangerous." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=454456&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

Arius Maximus 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source regarding Harry's support of Arsenal F.C.: Arsenal Celebrity Supporter Series: Prince Harry - PeeJay 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not a reliable source. This subject is being discussed at Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Arsenal. --G2bambino 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section contains the following text: "However, Saggybottom later claimed in an interview with the tabloid News of the World, for which she was paid over $30.00 CAD..." Gee a whole $30??? Obviously an error, anyone know the correct number? --ukexpat 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much on this? It was such a trivial point, especially when you consider there is no mention of his drug use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.72 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been announced and confirmed on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Daily Sun, The Mirror that Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan for the last 10 weeks serving on the front lines in the city of Helmann which is primarily made of the ethnic tribe of Gurkha's.

[4] [5] [6]

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7]

This article claims that an Australian and a German newspaper were the first to break the story of Prince Henry being deployed, then followed by the Drudge Report, Wikipedia currently says the Drudge Report was first. The article also details the secrecy about the deployment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.83.138 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd largest Australian mag. New Idea on Jan 7th and 15th and Feb 14th. As regards the deal with the major news organisations, they spent 5 months wrangling over whether to sacrifice Prince Harry's safety in exchange for privileged coverage. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did it say that he was brought home before he became addicted to heroin? Where did that come from? Why would the royal family worry about him becoming a heroin addict?--76.244.160.95 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a Prince of England the U.K., the grandson of the Queen, says he doesn't like England, that is noteworthy. It isn't just some random sound bite. It should be in the article. Kingturtle (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Prince of the United Kingdom actually. Would it be noteworthy if a Prince of Spain said he didn't like Andalusia? Lets not blow this out of proportion. --Camaeron (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote succintly explains a lot about how he feels, about what his life is like. Kingturtle (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Andalusia is not to Spain what England is to the U.K. Kingturtle (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with adding this as a sourced statement, not only is it far less controversial than his pot smoking and fancy-dress choices but it has clearly not in any way aliented him, his popularity is never higher and this popularity includes this statement. We are dealing with some real BLP issues in this article, but these are not the pot and fancy dress issues, which can be seen as criticism, but really we cannot portray his comment re England in a negative light, because that is now how it they are seen, remebering that England is not really a country right now and anyway our armed services serve Britain (with our Scottish PM) and the Queen is head of the UK and not of England. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wil be significant (it isn't certainly isn't yet), or it was an off-the-cuff remark that he'll retract tomorrow. Do you know how he feels? Anyway, unless the story grows it is simply a news cycle, fit for wikinews, but not for a biography. You can't tell whether a few words are going to be a significant part of explaining his life.--Doc^g 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't add it to the article to add to his controversies - I added it because (IMHO) it is noteworthy and telling of his biography. IMHO the quote really tells of what he's feeling and what he's been through. Kingturtle (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMHO = generally your POV. So unless you can find sources to show that this quote is significant and revealing of his attitude?--Doc^g 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I hadn't checked the history justt his thread, you are doing some good work re the Royal family right now and I am happy to acquiese to your judgement on this one, and indeed to some extent my last piece was agreing that this isn't notable at all, certainly not in a controversial way. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it is news, whether it is more than that only time will tell. Actually, I won't fight too hard to keep it out, because I suspect in a few weeks someone will simply think "eh? why is that there?" and remove it. (And I don't like England either ;) )--Doc^g 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, that is why I don't live there anymore. But I love being English abroad in a place where I am the only one. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I just did a quick informal google search for "don't like england that much" harry and retrieved hundreds hits. People are talking about it. I found a Reuters story titled Britain's Prince Harry:" I don't like England much", a AFP article titled Harry 'doesn't like England,' lashes British media. The quote is notable. Kingturtle (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about do the reverse of what Doc says and just keep it out for a few weeks and then review whether we should add it, depending on how controversial it seems. Harry has clearly had a big impact and with Kosovo indepence is clearly a hot topic throughout Europe right now (hence the forums) so this is one we should be very conservative with. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain a bit more on we should be very conservative with? I am not sure what you mean. Kingturtle (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re our living biography and neutrality policies, conservative with a small c, ie cautiously etc, nothing to do with the Tories. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even thinking of the Tories :) I was trying to figure out why we should be very conservative with this? And how we should proceed if we are to be conservative? Kingturtle (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Harry's remark ambiguous without context? When I read it I instinctively assumed he was alluding to overzealous paparazzi/tabloids. Britney Spears can't be that enamoured with the "US" at present ;-). SoLando (Talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write it out of context. I wrote it in context, and tried to write it NPOV. I encourage you to fix the phrasing. I am sure my first pass needs help. Kingturtle (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Andalusia is only a province of Spain so is England only a part of the UK. I dont find worth adding into the article. Add it to wikinews if you find it that amazing that someone doesnt like England. --Camaeron (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) My point exactly..I must agree with Solando! --Camaeron (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think our biography policy demands we edit conservatively, and while Harry is highly notable he didn't choose that notability in a way that Tony Blair or Amy Winehouse did. Anyway it continues to be highly uncontroversial. Many young people find the country they grew up in boring, and I guess Harry was finding Afghanistan exotic and fascinating (as most Afghanis would England) and I am sure this statement, far from alienating him, is one many people can identify with (but not the estimated 5 million ex-pats. Happy editing, SqueakBox 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not include the quote as I presented it? Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think BLP has nothing to do with the quote. It's public and high profile as is he so putting it in the article isn't intrusive. My reason for objecting is that I don't think it is important enough to put into a biography of his life. A public figure like this will get thousands of soundbites over the years, and most will be be lost after a 24 hour news cycle. Is there any on-going media debate about the quote? Will there be in two weeks? Does anyone care? It is newsworthy, but it is simply not encyclopedic. Wikinews, yes, wikiquote maybe. Actually I think we've a silly amount of detail on the whole Afganistan thing. Give it a year and we'll reduce it to two sentences. The problem is that too many wikipedians don't know the difference between an encyclopedia and a news reviewer.--Doc^g 15:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure everyone reading here has read the edit to this article that this discussion sprang from. It was in the article for all of two hours. I'd like some feedback on how to make that entry better. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote just seems out of place, KT, simply because it is generating no controversy whatsoever and there are many other sound bites that could be equally added. I think to some extent Doc is right about BLP and this issue as it just isn't controversial (in a way that the fancy dress was). Thank God no intrepid wikipedian picked up on the referenceable original Australian report. It seems to me Afghanistan is a milestone in Harry's life (possibly in the war too as it has certainly publicised it in the UK) though we still, probably inappropriately, still don't have an article on the current conflict in Afghanistan, butt hat the qwquote re not liking England is an entirely unmemorable part of that, we'd be much better using the much more picked up quote that "this was about as normal as it was going to get" in his life. Happy editing, SqueakBox 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to reiterate, I did not add it because I thought it was controversial. I am not trying to put in tabloid things involving parties and mishaps. I added it because it succinctly gives insight into his feelings and his life. Kingturtle (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it is within context but it's still liable to interpretation and that's one of my issues with the passage: it's ambiguous. His dislike of the media is noted and then is abruptly followed by a new sentence containing the quote, effectively detaching it from his (understandable) dislike of the media. The media is evidently discussing it but without a direct response from Harry himself, the meaning of the remark can't be reliably verified. If it alludes to his animosity towards the media, it might be pertinent to a section expounding on his relationship with them. Otherwise, is there really application for the quote? SoLando (Talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is kept NOPV, it seems the quote should be included. There is a difference between Harry saying that he doesn't like the English paparazzi versus his saying he doesn't like England. Life is yin and yang; Harry never has to hold down or try to find a regular job and never has to worry about money and can meet any celebrity he likes due to the position he was born into. This is the up side. The down side is that because of the position, wealth and privilege he was born into and continues to enjoy, he has a responsibility to act in a certain way, to try and do his duty for his country, the UK. Saying that he does not like England, the constituent country of the UK which includes the majority of the UK's land mass and population, is not living up to this duty. If he wants to give up all the privileges of his position, he can say what he likes. But if he is going to continue to use his title and position as he does, then he has a duty to his country to not badmouth it, and especially to not badmouth it in public or to the press, which he had done. Thefore, the comment should be included so long as it is done in a NPOV manner.RockStarSheister (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Wales off the "full name" part once or twice now. I won't delete it again until I have heard what every one here has to say and because I don't want to become part of an edit war. But...Wales really isnt one of Henry's names! Ironically the source after the name still reads thus "As a titled royal, Harry holds no surname, but, when one is used, it is Mountbatten-Windsor (or, more colloquially, his father's territorial designation, Wales)". Note it says when one is used.....That means it is only used when he needs one. As a titled royal he does not have a surname and logically it shouldn't be included. See Prince William or other family members for further proof. Thank you in advance...--Camaeron (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came through a week ago looking for a good enough quality articles to include in the WP DVD. Sadly there is too much unencyclopedic gossip in this article (ref paternity etc). It looks amateur against the well researched stuff and the talk section above seems to conclude it shouldn't be included. Newspapers which print unchecked material to make sales are not reliable resources and unless you can find that the gossip itself was notable enough to be discussed per sae in reliable sources with due weight it shouldn't be there. This article is way out of line with several policies but perhaps some of the regulars would rather clean it up yourselves? --BozMo talk 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Newspapers which print unchecked material to make sales are not reliable resources" unfortunately, from what I've seen of WP:RS, they are considered RS. Personally I'd love to see newspapers like the Express group considered unreliable after their 110 article campaign over several months defaming the McCanns recently. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS (which admittedly changes a bit) says "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used" so I would say the Express group doesn't get through. In so far as high quality means anything in a UK context it would be broadsheet not tabloid. --BozMo talk 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2002 BBC article acknowledges that in 2002 the rumour persisted but as it is a contentious allegation under WP:BLP it shouldn't get in unless a credible (preferably current) source supports it. --BozMo talk 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, whether the paternity issue is even true or not is almost irrelevant - surely the level of discussion and controversy surrounding the issue is notable? Why isn't a BBC story that mentions the rumours credible? And why does this section of the article keep being removed? The editing of this particuarly section seems remarkably biased. Davetibbs (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually concur with Mr Tibbs — the paternity issue is something which is relevant to this page — it's a stock reference among the British, and should certainly be addressed, even if just to make abundantly clear what tosh it is... ^† DBD 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a correction to this section. The previous edit showed the Queen's Gallantry Medal and the OSM for Afghanistan. I have removed the entry for the QGM and replaced it with the QGJM (Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal), to which he is actually entitled. Groovenow (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal from his list of honours. He wasn't in the army when they were awarded in 1997. (Sapperhutch (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It is certainly wrong to call him Prince Henry of Wales. His father is prince of Wales not him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.56.41 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWRRRAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!! That is all. ^† DBD 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Henry of Wales is correct. Now, if it were Henry, Prince of Wales? you'd have a point anon. PS- The Duke of York's daughters are Princess Beatrice of York & Princess Eugenie of York (for example). GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all children of princes in their own right are styled so. With the exception of the Wessexes...--Cameron (T|C) 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly, I have deleted the reference to "The" Prince Henry again. It is in the context of his official title, so it is important that it be right.

Neither the royal family website nor the Court Circular speaks of "The" Prince Henry / Harry. think that both can be trusted to get it right. "The" is only used for the issue of a reigning sovereign. See the articles on Princess Margaret and Princess Anne which show how their titles changed to "the" upon their parents ascending the throne. Informed Owl (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

If you check out Elizabeth II, in the info box, her father is George V of the United Kingdom and her mother is Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, so there changing this mother's maiden name. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the Duchess of York at the time of her daughter's birth and later on Queen Elizabeth and then The Queen Mother. George V was born Prince George of York and was Duke of York at the time of his daughter's birth so the standard practice is to use the monarch's title and his/her consort's birth one.64.230.110.176 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Elizabeth II's father was George VI. Further, the Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon issue appears to be a special case that was covered in discussions at her article. --G2bambino (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a move request, not a info box. See nearly any other royal info box Ludwig II of Bavaria or Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales and maiden name is given 64.230.110.176 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. If there's one thing I've learned - and you, as an anon, perhaps have not - is that we sometimes have to eschew consistency to accomodate anomolies. Aslo, one article does not always set the standard for others; it can be wrong. So, though there may be other articles that list the maiden name of the subject's mother, that does not mean that a) those articles are correctly formatted, or b) that the same practice applies here. Perhaps you should take this to WP:BROY where there are a number of users far more versed in this and could help you out. --G2bambino (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me that thinks it somewhat dubious that he would actually have been positioned 'on the front lines' in Afghanistan. Given the Taliban's use of mortars I'd say that it's very unlikely that he was actually stationed so close to the conflict as is made out by the press, if anything it seems like a token gesture, to show that the royal family will fight alongside the British Armed Forces. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion. We don't do those here. If you can find a reputable, verifiable third-party source that agrees with you, then by all means put it in the article. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this should be at Prince Harry of Wales. This is by far the most common name by which he is known (including at his official site, www.princeofwales.gov.uk, and at www.royal.gov.uk) and does not go against the naming conventions concerning names and titles. What do others think? Opera hat (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should probably stay where it is; variations of Pr Harry redirect here, I think? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 13:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, OK - why do you think it should stay where it is? Opera hat (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Prince Henry "Harry" of Wales...hehehe. --Cameron* 12:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera hat: it's the correct name, Harry redirects here. I don't feel enormously passionate about it, but I do feel we should have the article at the correct name whenever possible. [ roux ] [x] 13:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay at Henry; as we don't has Prince Billy of Wales. Nor do we have King Harry VIII of England or King Jimmy IV of Scotland, etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none of those are ever called that, so that would be why. Whereas Prince Harry is called Prince Harry, and far more frequently than he's called "Prince Henry". The only time I can think of that he is called Henry is in the Court Circular. Opera hat (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is called that, yes, and we have redirects to handle that. [ roux ] [x] 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't he be at Harry according to WP:COMMONNAME (as I said before)? Opera hat (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if anyone puts in the common name, they get redir to his full correct name. IAR allows for exceptions. [ roux ] [x] 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why Prince Henry of Wales but Tony Blair and Bill Clinton? I think there has to be a good reason to WP:IGNORE, and these examples would seem to suggest that having the "correct" name at the expense of the most common name isn't one. Opera hat (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I'm not hugely passionate about it; I've said my piece. Whatever consensus decides is fine by me, though perhaps a quick trip to the Naming Conventions board (the royalty one I mean) would make sense? [ roux ] [x] 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because neither Tony Blair nor Bill Clinton are members of royal houses? Are there not guidelines set up for the titling of articles on royal individuals? --G2bambino (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are; the relevant section is WP:NCNT#Other royals, which makes no pronouncement either way on whether the most common first name or the actual full first name should be used. That's why I thought the only guideline on that would be WP:COMMONNAME, which would support Harry over Henry. Opera hat (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the guideline is not absolutely clear on actual name/common name usage. I would infer from it that when a royal title is required for an article title, the individual's proper name should be used. --G2bambino (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably an issue for the WP:NCNT talk page, then. I'll come back here if a consensus is reached there to clarify the guidelines. Opera hat (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though WP:NCNT already has "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem" emblazoned across the top so I'm not sure if much can be added to that. Opera hat (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it applies that well to royalty, though. For example, the article is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not Elizabeth II of England. It's Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana. Charles, Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles. Prince Harry of Wales redirects here anyway, so I don't see what the issue is, really. --G2bambino (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, g2. Prince Harry of Wales just looks odd. If we're going to use Harry, let's move the whole page to "Prince Harry", the common name. "Prince Harry of Wales", is not very widespread. --Cameron* 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H'm, yes, I see your point. I might still see what people have to say at WP:NCNT if/when I can be bothered to raise the issue, though. Opera hat (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, the image you just moved (of Harry standing at attention) should not be on the left side, as MOS calls for images to 'face' the text. The dominant figures in the image are all facing left. Please restore the image to where it was before. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't move it to where it was before. I will, however, move it to the right. --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Before, it was beside the first paragraph, which discussed events in 2005. The photo is of an event in 2005. It makes simple logical sense for the image to be next to the paragraph it is illustrating. Please put it back. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again.. please put the image back where it was (the status quo) and then discuss where to move it. This is per BRD and per what you always require of others. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already discussed where to move it. At the top-right of the section it collides with the BRF navbox. At the right of the section, one paragraph in, the subject is facing away from the page. Perhaps if something is resolved with the layout and placement of the BRF navbox, the image can be shifted to the top-left again. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'We' have discussed no such thing. And you seem to have your sides mixed up; the subject of the article is facing facing due forward, while the dominant figures in the photo are facing left. Now, again, the image is displaced on your computer, not on the majority of screens that are online. And, again, placing the image there simply isn't logical. Please put the image back where it was and then discuss where to move it. This is per BRD and what you always require of others. The status quo had the image at the top right of the section, and you always require that people observe the status quo while something is being discussed. Please follow your own rules. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you consider your screen to be the benchmark for all editing, and the layout on screens other than yours to be of no importance. There are, however, other users here, and the best efforts should be made to accomodate all of them. Let's not be screen elitists.

Returning the image to where it was reinstates your preference. If I do so, what incentive will you have to discuss changes, and what alternative could you propose if I move it back that you can't put forward now? --G2bambino (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What incentive do I have? I won't even dignify that with a response. I am trying to get you to do what you require everyone else to do when they make changes you don't like. Namely, restore the disputed part to the way it was so that discussion may work out the details. I'd remind you, again, that BRD requires this as well... so whether it's doing what you require from others, or doing what BRD requires, you're sort of bound to return the image to where it was no matter what. Please do so, and I will be happy to discuss alternatives. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though you again seem to be tainting your efforts with self-beneficial interpretations of both the guidelines and my past words, I have none-the-less restored the image to its former location. Now, I've no alternatives other than to put it back from where I just moved it, the BRF navbox issue notwithstanding. What are your suggestions? --G2bambino (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly 'self-benificial' to ask that you a) abide by guidelines, and b) abide by what you expect others to do.

My suggestion is that you stop worrying about it. Formatting to make things perfect on your screen is something you have been informed--indeed, something you have told me--doesn't work, as far back as two or three years ago. The simple fact is, we don't have access here to full control over how a given page is going to look. We are limited in what we can do. If this were your own site, where you had complete control, you could define alternate layouts for different screen sizes, for example. We can't do that here. And so, we aim--as LAYOUT implies--to format pages so that they work well on the screen size & resolution that is used by the most people online.

The simple fact about this particular image move is that putting it anywhere else makes no sense. The photo is of Harry on parade at Sandhurst in 2005. The first paragraph discusses Harry at Sandhurst in 2005, and moves on chronologically to other things. There is no benefit served by moving the image anywhere else, much less formatting pages to fit one marginally used screen resolution.

Now, please restore the images you moved and removed, respectively, on EIIR and William's articles, as those too are subject to BRD. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 23:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to repeat myself, with emphasis for clarity: you again seem to be tainting your efforts with self-beneficial interpretations of both the guidelines and my past words.

I'm sorry if it exasperates you, but I am not going to be a monitor snob and believe that images should be placed to benefit any one person. Neither of us has any idea what size screens the majority of Wikipedia users have, nor what resolution the majority of them are set to, nor how many of whom are on here at any given point of time. As with the rest of this project, image placement becomes an exercise in accommodation: if someone raises a concern about format or appearance, we do our best to address those concerns, within established guidelines, so that the end result is better than before, for more users than before. We are told that article layout is a matter of common sense, and nothing tells us that an image cannot be a paragraph away from the one it relates best to; the main guide is that it be inside the relevant section. I'm not going to say your desire to have the image right smack next to mention of Sandhurst is in any way unwarranted; however, as doing so causes layout issues, and it need not be exactly in that spot, I maintain that it should be placed where I had it before. Your suggestion that I not worry about it simply is not acceptable; I could put the image back and tell you to do the same. Where else, then, do you suggest the image go in order to satisfy everyone to the greatest possible extent? --G2bambino (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)I haven't tainted anything, I merely asked you to abide by the guidelines you frequently require of others. Good, now that's out of the way, perhaps we can actually focus on content. Seeing as there really is no logical reason not to have the image next to the paragraph it's illustrating, there's really no need to move it. Moving it to satisfy the layout concerns of a very small minority of internet users really doesn't make any sense, as it disturbs the logic of the page, and doesn't account for those using screen readers. — [ roux ] [x] 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now that's out of the way... That type of flippant and dismissive attitude only serves to further aggravate. You are reading guidelines and my past words in a manner that benefits you, as opposed to in a way that moves things forward for the benefit of the project. Along those lines, you make claims about what the majority of Wikipedia users see; how are you aware of this statistic? You also imply that WP:ACCESS states an image must be placed not just within the relevant section, but within the relevant paragraph; where does it say such a thing? --G2bambino (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I never said that, I would be hard pressed to show you where ACCESS says that. What I have said is that since ACCESS requires that images be within their sections, there is a logical inference that they should, where possible, also be beside the paragraphs they are illustrating. As for the statistic, please see this, which was first brought to your attention here. — [ roux ] [x] 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you said it; I said you implied it. Logical inferences are not guidelines, so let's not pretend they are. As the image does not have to go in the first paragraph, it can be moved elsewhere, should there be reason to do so. Your link says nothing about the majority of Wikipedia users, nor does it say that the opinions of people with different screen resolutions are dismissable. I have said to you that it being in the first paragraph causes it to collide with the BRF navbox. I propose shifting it down a paragraph in order to avoid this. You object. What other solutions do you propose? --G2bambino (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself said that 'common sense' reigns. Common sense dictates that the image be placed next to the paragraph it is illustrating. Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense also says that white space is unprofessional. You're welcome (?). Will you, or will you not, acknowledge that there is a problem and work towards amicably solving it? --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you state is not a problem on the majority of computer screens online. As such, it is minor, and logical/ACCESS concerns about placing the image beside the paragraph it is illustrating trump it--as even if the image is displaced on wide resolution screens, screen readers will still read in the correct order. — [ roux ] [x] 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I state is a problem. If you will not acknowledge it as such, you are already standing in the way of resolution. As you admit that placing an image in a paragraph is only your extrapolation from WP:ACCESS, and that the guideline actually makes no mention of where in a paragraph the image should go, the argument is a red herring. --G2bambino (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a minor problem. And no, it's not a red herring, it's common sense. There's no need for the image to move, but I must say it's refreshing that you did do what you require of others. Please do the same at Elizabeth and William's articles so that discussion may actually commence. — [ roux ] [x] 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may see it as a minor problem, but that doesn't mean I do, or anyone has to. Your sense isn't necessarily more common than mine, either. I will put the image back where I had it, and this will then have to go to a wider audience for input if you cause any future disruption. --G2bambino (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is in direct violation of BRD, but go ahead if you want to. I'm not creating disruption; I'm attempting to discuss a contested edit. — [ roux ] [x] 22:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not discussing, you are attempting to lecture. Further, as you never reverted my move of the image to the second paragraph, right-side, BRD hasn't progressed past the bold phase. Thank you in advance for not causing disruption, then. --G2bambino (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)You may characterise my words however you like, it's your choice. The point remains that I didn't revert because I was trying to get you to do what you require of others, which is to revert one's own edits back to the status quo and discuss from there. — [ roux ] [x] 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've forgotten the part where it was shown to you that the status quo was the image in the infobox and you said you didn't want that. You then decided that where you had placed it, a scant day ago, was the status quo. I do not characterise your words; it is your actions that speak for themselves in this case. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have this article confused with Prince William's. In any case, I'm tired of this discussion. As I said there, please re-read BRD and your repeated instructions to people that the status quo be observed during a discussion, and then re-examine your failure to observe either. I'm going to go have a nice dinner now. — [ roux ] [x] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you responded before I could rectify my error. Pertaining to this page, I did revert to the status quo; however, you have since refused to discuss the issue, instead choosing to argue that there isn't an issue, which is rather what I thought you would do in the first place (hence, my original question about incentive). --G2bambino (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not refused to discuss the issue. I have given my opinion on the issue. I have attempted to get you to understand it. Your refusal to do so isn't the same as me not discussing. So um, not really seeing what you mean. — [ roux ] [x] 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't discuss an issue you say doesn't exist. You may be of the opinion that placing the image where you want it doesn't cause any issue, but I am not insane in seeing that it does. As I said, if you're unwilling to even recognise a problem, there's no way you'll be able to participate in the finding of a solution. --G2bambino (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop twisting my words. I said the problem is minor, and trumped by other concerns. [ roux ] [x] 13:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you did. Eventually. I apologise then. The question, then, is: is whitespace a lesser problem than an image not being in the best associated paragraph? That aside, even, fixing the BRF navbox would solve this entire mess. --G2bambino (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As for the infobox, I have made my opinion clear and await consensus at the template page. [ roux ] [x] 13:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I say no, and would rather move the image pending any future changes to the BRF navbox. But I will be patient, and wait a little longer to see what the outcome is there. --G2bambino (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of accessibility outweigh any minor cosmetic issues. [ roux ] [x] 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they do, but you'd first have to prove there was an accessability issue. Your extrapolations from WP:ACCESS don't necessarily count as fact. --G2bambino (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I really am sick to death of arguing ridiculous semantics with you. Seeing as nobody else has weighed in on your side after two days, it's clear that consensus is for the picture to remain where it is. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by all means, stop arguing, Roux. Nobody else has weighed in on "your side" either. The image will stay where it is because I said I will be patient and wait to see what happens with the BRF navbox. Let's see what can be done over there. --G2bambino (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The image will stay where it is because that is the consensus. You want it moved, you need to change the consensus. [ roux ] [x] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I'd need to work on resolving any isses anyone raised against a move. So far, that's only you. I will wait to see what happens with the navbox, and, pending the outcome of that, will see what needs to be done next here, whether or not that be taking this to a wider audience, as we've already reached the point of impasse here. --G2bambino (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only me... and silence=consensus. So.. yeah, sorry, it stays because that's the consensus. You're the only one arguing for consensus to change, and you have no support. And that really is quite enough of your pedantry for me today. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. You are the only one arguing for it to remain as is, and you have no support. Should the navbox not change, and you continue to revert my moving of the image to accomodate the navbox without white space, then the dispute has to go to the next level of conflict resolution. That is how a new consensus is formed under such circumstances.

So.. yeah, sorry... quite enough of your pedantry for me... I already mentioned earlier your flippant tone and sarcasm; I will remind you again that it only serves to aggravate. --G2bambino (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. [ roux ] [x] 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some elements were removed from the lead recently; I restored them as they make the lead here consistent with those at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Charles, Prince of Wales, and Prince William of Wales. --G2bambino (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted. This material primarily belongs in British Royal Family and you have mischaracterized the article on the Queen, please do not do so again. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I'm not sure what material you're talking about, nor what mischaracterisations. Further, you've put in reference to something called "the Commonwealth realm"; that does not exist. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the person at Talk hasn't contributed anywhere since then His contributions list says otherwise. Also, Roux, why did you revert my revert, but not User:UpDown's? SqueakBox had also removed the words "although he is resident in and most involved with the United Kingdom", which UpDown subsequently put back, without input here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh terribly sorry, he hasn't contributed since a short time after you posted your reply. Whatever. And I am so very sorry that I missed an edit. CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? [ roux ] [x] 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. Us humans do make mistakes, you know. [ roux ] [x] 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed we do. --G2bambino (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like the fact he once worn the "bad things things to bad people" is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Gerardw (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was worn as an part/extension of his army uniform in the context of a war. There is no point in removing the comment, it is only a line long. I am in favour of including sourced relevant information, as opposed to excluding information. For many (like me!) this is a notable/significant fact - I am sure most people can agree with this statement. Chendy (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..this latest disgrace. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7822574.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationOverlord (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but don't use the article talk page to preach your own opinion. — Realist² 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, but one cannot in reality be expected to be equanimous about racism, can one? Because equanimity is often mistaken for support, do you not think, sir? OperationOverlord (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here; unexpressed equanimity equates to silent tolerance? I don't think so, because it posits awareness. Even if you are aware, is there any reason why a point of view *needs* to be expressed? The impression I get is that most people don't give a flying toss about this storm in a teacup; I eagerly await, however, the febrile response that "Shock horror! Prince Harry is seen SMOKING a CIGARETTE and BRANDISHING a MACHETE". He's obviously from a dysfunctional family and the intervention of Social Workers is long overdue. Fuck off! Let's get real here, please, he's a soldier. He does what soldiers do. If you don't like it, please feel free to abolish the Army and see how far it gets you. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, he is not just a normal soldier, he is a prince from a very well known palace, and as a royalty, he is expected to set good examples to his people, which he is obviously not doing. I think this issue should be mentioned because it is real and Prince Henry himself confessed and apologised for the remarks. But I really respect all of you for defending him although he has done something wrong, all of you are very loyal to the royal family. Wow! =) kotakkasut 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the principle you set out, worthy though it might be, historically, is indefensible, although Prince Andrew does not appear to have suffered unduly from criticism in the long term. However, the third in line, and sometimes the second in line, to the throne, are not immune from criticism. Perhaps you should Google for "Tranby Croft" for an example within the last 120 years. Nothing to do with loyalty to the royal family; I wouldn't miss them, personally, although they are probably better at unifying a nation in times of trouble than is possible in a republic. Again, that hasn't really happened in the last 60 years, but then, they have more money than I have. Twats. --Rodhullandemu 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of your points are right, especially the last part lol! Ps. Someone should really archive this page, it takes forever to load... Signed, kotakkasut 02:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, another news of the incident: BBC NEWS UK: Prince's racist term sparks anger. I'm off this topic. kotakkasut 03:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived some of the page, it will help. — Realist² 06:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whilst i agree this needs to be mentioned, i think there should be a little more balance. This is totally one sided without stating a single defense issued or source that defended him just saying that he has "apologised" is not enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What defense is there, we need third party sources to report this "defense". — Realist² 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Calm down Rodullandemu! Admins should not use such bad language!Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've heard admins say a lot worse, besides, it obviously wasn't directed at anyone in particular, more at the overblown situation. — Realist² 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to forward my thanks to the grounded nature of the writing on this issue to whoever did it. Good stuff :) Superpie (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying, at some point I'll have to start trimming the info down, per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. — Realist² 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the adding a preamble to his actual comments, that he "used racist language", I think Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves is worth a read. Rockpocket 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that people are inserting too much minutae drawn from every tabloid out there. Realist is right that we should watch carefully the boundaries of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, as well as WP:NPOV. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]