Talk:Education of the British royal family

Should the table in this article be deleted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the table in this article remain in its current format and layout, be changed to a different format or layout, or be deleted? LavaBaron (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep table in current format and with current columns. LavaBaron (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there an RfC for something that does not really seem to be in dispute? Or are you genuinely uncertain about the best format? In any case; I think the table is fine, but the bolding of the names is unnecessary, and the colors are rather harsh on the eye. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Vanamonde93. The table has been deleted, recreated, deleted, recreated. It is very much in dispute and, given the topic, it is reasonably predictable the dispute will continue to quickly escalate. There has been an edit note that its mere existence is WP:POINTY and it must be eviscerated from WP forever. LavaBaron (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you're quite right, I just missed it given the number of edits in the last couple of days. My comment still stands; I think the table is appropriate, but the colors are too bright as of now. I'm a little doubtful about the necessity for this article as a whole, though; why not simply merge it into the main article? This is bordering on cruft. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a merger, should some suggest one. LavaBaron (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 as we are now on the verge of a full-scale and vicious edit war breaking out, would you consider changing your !vote to "Keep" or "Change"; basically anything other than "Comment"? Demonstration of an emerging consensus one way or the other would probably help cool things down a bit. LavaBaron (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the table, but please remove or at least tone down the garish colours, which distract from the information provided. Also, the inclusion of the photographs and names in one field leads to a lot of blank space in the later columns; I assume that there more detail in these fields is intended for later. (for example, Prince Andrew's attendance at Lakefield College School)—Anne Delong (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vanamonde93 and Anne Delong that the colors are too bright, almost garish. Is there any objection to removing them, or at least to changing them to something less jarring? Neutrality^talk 21:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Just changed the colors, Neutrality. LavaBaron (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Change The list should be plainer but more extensive. See List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. Who is going to build such a list? I'm not. Unless you are volunteering, the closing editor will need to classify this as a Keep !vote since it proposes to introduce non-existent content. LavaBaron (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Change per Andrew D and WP:COLOUR. Whizz40 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Convert to text See my comment below. EEng 22:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• I agree with the recent removal (actually, conversion of the table to text in the article body), and the reason given in the edit summary [1]: "Remove large table that exists only to showcase its emptiness. Better done with text and ignores earlier royals". EEng 22:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was unaware of this discussion. I should have checked here first. Anyone can reinstate it if they wish and we can allow the discussion to conclude. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

But your instincts were right. I'd removed it myself, earlier. Like your ES said, its purpose is to highlight its own emptiness. I know, let's make it go back to Alfred so it can be even more breathtakingly empty! EEng 22:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate tone, POV, SYNTH, etc etc

Let me quote from Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Education_of_the_British_Royal_Family:

• Date and length fine. However I do have a problem with the hook in that it appears to be a WP:BLP violation given claiming HM had the education of a "housewife" looks more like a WP:POV from Starkey and I would not be happy approving that. Is there another hook that we could use? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have similar concerns, but more broad. The entire article is WP:SYNTH from scattered sources. Where's a serious, non-news source putting the education of the current Royal Family into perspective cf. other modern heads of state and/or British royals of the past, etc? The entire article reads like a hatchet job. Statements such as "George of Denmark, the husband of Queen Anne has been generally regarded as unintelligent, lacking any interests other than binge drinking and model ship building" cannot be based on sources such as The Royal Book of Lists: An Irreverent Romp Through British Royal History from Alfred the Great to Prince William (dust jacket blurb: "Even Queen Victoria herself would be amused (not to mention astonished) by the hundreds of revelations to be found within The Royal Book of Lists"). EEng 07:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• I read this last night (perusing DYK for the first time in months) and, while not being a huge fan of the monarchy (too overexposed in my opinion), to echo the above I thought the article came off with a very negative POV. Reading the title and the first sentence of the lead, I'd have expected this list to at least address the education of the Queen, her immediate ancestry (parents/grandparents) and descendants (children/grandchildren) - including the various tutors, private schools, universities and military academies involved. Instead it read like a damning tabloid news article, complete with trivia and a limited selection of her heirs. Fuebaey (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed all this material in a series of edits carrying explanatory edit summaries (re non-RS, obvious SYNTH, etc.) starting here [2]. Nonetheless, most of this material has been recently restored, with no acknowledgment of the obvious problems. And even more such material -- even more obviously problematic -- has now been added as well. For example,

Princess Diana of Wales once told a 15 year-old boy she was "thick as a plank" and had difficulty playing Trivial Pursuit as she had problems understanding the instruction booklet.

is cited to an obviously self-deprecating joke told to a sick boy in the hospital [3]. Similarly,

The decision to admit William, Duke of Cambridge to a non-degree agriculture program at the University of Cambridge met with criticism from some who declared his entry as a "free pass" and "insult" to other Cambridge students, however, others noted the vocationally-oriented course was open to anyone with sufficient funds from the "post set" and not just royalty.

is cited to something hosted at cnn.com and labeled "opinion" -- by "Victoria Arbiter, royal commentator" [4].

This is all inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, which should be based on sober sources discussing, with some kind of context and analysis, the education of the royal family, not a patchwork of snickering sources taking potshots. EEng 04:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You deleted sourced content from Britain's leading constitutional scholar commenting on the constitutional head of state as merely an aside from a "random person." I have reverted your edit and will be working to undo other elements of vandalism and whitewashing. LavaBaron (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed text which misrepresented what Starkey said. He didn't say "philistine"; the headline did. And he didn't describe Elizabeth's "cultural refinement and intellectual curiosity to that of a 'housewife'"; read the interview to see what he actually said. Even if he had actually said these things (which, BTW, aren't even statements about her education, but her sensibilities, for lack of a better word) it's WP:UNDUE outside serious commentary placing her education in some kind of context -- that of other royals? that of other women of her time? EEng 04:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I see now you've added some balancing material, and that improves things on this point a lot. I'm going to sleep on this for now. EEng 04:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The word "philistine" was never in this WP article at all, so I'm not sure what you think you removed. I think your idea of having a glass of water and taking a nap to calm yourself down a bit is a good one. I hope you come back with a more collaborative attitude. LavaBaron (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake -- philistine was in the title The Guardian gave to its article ("Queen is poorly educated and philistine"), and my point was that (since Starkey didn't use that word in the interview) it's a measure of which the Guardian's article stretched what Starkey actually said.

As for the water and the nap: Isn't that cute! So clever! EEng 05:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We find that when one is more careful and deliberative in their edits, one is less likely to make mistakes. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Naturally. That's also true when one's attention isn't absorbed by distortion and misuse of sources. Please do have the last word now, since that seems like the only way this conversation can end. EEng 12:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place for gasping outrage. Please take it to userspace. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC

Let's get this back to the basics - if there is to be an article on education of the British Royal Family, it should be more than this opportunity for snarkiness from mostly minor sources. How does the education of the royal family compare to other monarchies in the 20th and 21st centuries? Same or different? When did they decide to send their children to public/military schools and universities? (Didn't that really start with Prince Charles?) What was the relation between ideas about military training and monarchy? Make an article about more than quick quotes. It might also be useful to compare the education of the Royals to those of democratic leaders; they're not always at the top academically.Parkwells (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the page needs work to improve its tone and scope. There's a major source for the topic which is currently completely missing: Gordon, Peter; Lawton, Denis (2003), Royal Education: Past, Present, and Future, Psychology Press, ISBN 9780714683867, ISSN 1462-2076. Using such sources, we should take out the gossip and journalism, replacing it with history and educationalism. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "educationalism" is a word. But feel free to add new sources, if you like. We only ask you don't whitewash the article by obliterating existing RS. LavaBaron (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I flagged this on a couple of project talk pages above to see if other editors can help with improvements. Whizz40 (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Educationalism is certainly a word. Per the OED, it means "The theory or practice of the provision of education". Andrew D. (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Whizz40. I flagged it at all the project talk pages you missed (i.e. all the non-royal ones). LavaBaron (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to spam, but makes sense to cover them all. Whizz40 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

An amusing digression on whether a word is a word

The link you provided doesn't work, Andy, and "Educationalism" isn't in Merriam-Webster or Cambridge. That's okay, we all make mistakes. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

But educationalism is in OED, so I guess we can chalk up another one to limited breadth and halfbaked research. EEng 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. And please stop with the name-calling. My goodness you're a disagreeable person. LavaBaron (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. "The theory or practice of the provision of education; = educationism", with quotes starting in 1857. Do you always just make stuff up without checking? EEng 01:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The word we're discussing is "Educationalism" not "Educationism". As I said, "Educationalism" is not in the Oxford dictionary. Please be more attentive to detail before starting to hurl insults. It will save you much embarrassment. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Both words are in the OED – they are synonyms. As LavaBaron seems unable to access this work, then, per WP:CRYSTAL, he should not try to divine its content by speculation or other fanciful means. Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, at long last will you get a fucking clue? If you're looking at the compact or concise or pocket OED, or your great-granddad's copy, get down to the public library and find out the actual answer in the latest edition. My quote above is the entry for educationalism, in which (as AD has helpfully tried to explain to you) the "= educationism" indicates synonomy to educationism. And please, don't now say synonomy isn't a word.

That you start by getting the wrong end of the stick -- not just gratuitously, but mistakenly, pointing out another's non-error in using what you incorrectly assert is a non-word -- then maintain a deathgrip on said wrong-end-of-stick -- "That's okay, we all make mistakes", "Please be more attentive to detail" -- even as the facts are rubbed repeatedly in your face, is emblematic of your behavior with respect to this very page, which ironically enough you started as a borderline attack article featuring others' alleged intellectual and educational shortcomings. I'd tell you to "Please be more attentive to detail" as it will "save you much embarrassment", except you seem incapable of embarrassment.

EEng 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not in the OED, the Cambridge Dictionary, or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It's not a word. Don't know how else to tell you that. If you want to double-down, that's fine, but please try to police your language a bit while doing so. Your over-the-top exhortations ("get a fucking clue!", etc.) are really becoming a bit much. If you need to take a breather to review WP:CIVIL, you should certainly feel empowered to do so. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how the phrase double down is always used by people talking through their hats. Two editors are telling you that they've set eyes on the actual OED entry, and warned you to be sure you're looking at the current edition, and even provided a link to the entry (which despite what you say does work, though you may need to log in through your local library -- you do have a library card, yes?). Unfortunately copyright prevents a screenshot from being supplied, but here's the entry [5] in Oxford Dictionaries (publisher: Oxford University Press). Against this you appeal to the Cambridge Dictionary, which advertises itself as "The most popular online dictionary and thesaurus for learners of English", so hardly the comprehensive reference work we need here (though you might keep it in mind for your own personal use as you continue to learn).

Diana may have been a bad speller, but I suspect she could use a dictionary. If you need to take a breather to review WP:Competence is required, you should certainly feel empowered to do so. Andrew Davidson, anything you want to add, or should we just give it up as hopeless? EEng 22:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• It is obviously important to have the last word. :) It also seems worth noting that, per MOS:TIES, usages such as "high school" and dictionaries of American English like Merriam-Webster should be avoided. Americanism is another -ism word too. Andrew D. (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... to the casual observer it's appearing you may believe all dictionaries, of any language, should be avoided. LavaBaron (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it might appear that way to someone who has trouble even using a dictionary. Do you honestly think that anyone reading this thread will believe that you actually looked in the current OED, that educationalism actually isn't there, and that Andrew D. and I are just making it up? EEng 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Should sourced criticism of the ruling family be permitted on WP?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should these passages be included in the "criticism" section (sources obfuscated below for ease of reading, but contained here [6]) as representative of significant criticism this topic as received?

• David Starkey has described Elizabeth II as poorly learned, comparing her cultural refinement and intellectual curiosity to that of a "housewife". The criticism was rejected by Marco Houston, editor of Royalty Monthly Magazine, who said that Elizabeth "may not have had the best formal education, but she has had the best education at the university of life".
• The decision to admit William, Duke of Cambridge to a non-degree agriculture program at the University of Cambridge met with criticism from some who declared his entry as a "free pass" and "insult" to other Cambridge students, however, others noted the vocationally-oriented course was open to anyone with sufficient funds from the "posh set" and not just royalty. Cambridge's student newspaper The Tab initially criticized William's admission, questioning whether his grades were sufficient to attend the university, but later backtracked, noting that the course was a short vocational certification and that the university customarily admitted pretty much anyone to it.

LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep content sourced to RS, not undue, completely topical, accurately represented; this is WP, not US Weekly - critical information concerning celebrities, if properly sourced, is permitted - content presents both sides of debate (criticism and rebuttal) equally LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - but needs expansion. There should be more comparison to education of other rulers, perhaps even reference to what role Royals have and how they govern through others. There should be more than quick quotes from headlines. If there can't be more serious attempt to cover this topic, then delete the article. It is shallow right now; seems to be used as a chance to criticize the Royals.Parkwells (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Having a criticism section is a blatant violation of numerous policies including WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:NOTFORUM. Andrew D. (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Throwing out a bunch of wikilinks doesn't establish why it's a violation. Do you care to elaborate? In the meantime, don't remove content that is the subject of an active RfC. I've undone your vandalism. LavaBaron (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let's start with WP:NPOV which, in a nutshell is, that "Articles must not take sides". The criticism section takes one-sided, negative view of the education of royalty. Its structure is inherently unencyclopedic and it gives undue weight to minority views. As this attacks living people, WP:BLP requires that "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly...Contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion..." Andrew D. (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't apply in this case. This does not advance minority views and is not an "attack". Content is presented neutrally and is sourced to RS. BLP does not proscribe the introduction of unflattering content. BLP can not be used as a thinly veiled cover to impose edit wars inspired by your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LavaBaron (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remove per Andrew D. Whizz40 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• I would certainly keep the David Starkey and Marco Houston material on Elizabeth—that seems relevant, and Starkey is well-known—but I would exclude the content on William related to The Tab, since that does not seem like it has enduring significance. I would also consider merging the "observers' views" section with the "history" section, since I don't think the current structure is best. Neutrality^talk 20:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Content related to William (source says 'some students have said etc.', trivial non-notable criticism). Neutral about Starkey, who I know in a Gdn. piece based some of his criticism on the fact that Her Maj, walked away from a Starkey 'explanation' to say something inconseqential to Phil, obviously proving her lack of intellectual curiosity? Comment The whole article reads as a 'snarky' jibe at the Royal Family, no I'm not a royalist. Yes I recognise that none of them has ever contributed much to the sum of human knowledge. So what? IF the subject is worthy of discussion, it deserves better coverage than this. Pincrete (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete entry for Diana

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deleted entry for Diana; she was not in the line of succession, so including her seemed an opportunity simply to point out her lack of formal education and poor spelling ability, a failing shared by many.Parkwells (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it. This article is not "Education of the Line of Succession to the British Throne", but "Education of the British Royal Family". LavaBaron (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Then where is the summary and analysis of education of other wives: Sarah Ferguson, Catherine Middleton? This article is shallow and trivial as it stands.Parkwells (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add those, Parkwells. WP is written by people like you, not some mysterious force. LavaBaron (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed text from this section which fails several policy points, particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Please also note WP:POINTY. Whizz40 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply throwing out wikilinks does not establish text "fails several policy points". You'll need to present a cogent argument as to why it fails those policy points, specifically. We don't censor WP to meet the needs of celebrity fanboyism. LavaBaron (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, you misread Ali's comments about Diana, and by your emphasis, misrepresented her and other points of view. I've added more details from articles discussing the Royals, which are necessary to show context. Ali was not "criticizing" Diana, but describing her: Fact - she was uneducated. No one argues with that. But Ali's article was admiring about her. You do not own this article and do not have sole authority over what editors add here. You keep insisting on having only comments presenting the Royals in a poor light, which are not accurate even from the sources you cite. For readers who are not British, I think it is useful to identify who Monica Ali and John Lanchester are, rather than forcing them to go to other articles to figure out who is speaking about these figures.Parkwells (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't "misread Ali's comments". Further, this is an encylcopedia article, Parkwells, not an article in National Enqurier or Royal Hotties Monthly. We don't whitewash or promotionalize our favorite celebrity families on WP, whether they're Windsor, Kardashian, or Osmond. If you have questions about how this all works, please don't hesitate to ask. Until then, you should not go against the community's wishes to unilaterally destroy knowledge by deleting sourced information that is the subject of an active RfC. LavaBaron (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Quit lecturing, LavaBaron, and read the sources. You are cherrypicking to make your own negative points, which is obvious by your failure to include contextual material. The community is critical of your approach, not mine.Parkwells (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored improvements to this section and dropped parts per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK - undue emphasis on trivial details and text ostensibly about education but really ad hominem. Whizz40 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article by removing sourced content. The sourced information you removed is more recent than John Lanchester's analysis and so provides balance in the form of sur-rebuttal. I have undone your vandalism as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I advise you broach this as a discussion point for the community to deliberate on, instead of stubbornly imposing unilateral changes to the article, so as to avoid an edit war. LavaBaron (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Similar and consistent changes are being made by several editors which you are repeatedly undoing. The community consensus is with the majority which you are going against. Please stop reverting edits which have consensus among multiple editors. Whizz40 (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is patently false. Only one other editor, other than you, has blanked this specific sentence and he, in fact, blanked the entire section - deleting a dozen high-quality RS as part of a general whitewashing. Stop now. A RfC is now open on this topic. Under no circumstance should content be changed wihle a RfC is active. LavaBaron (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, you seem to think you control this article. You choose only the most damaging quotes, you delete additions other editors make to provide context and a fuller sense of what writers are saying, and you claim to be providing balance. You did misread Monica Ali's article; she did not "criticise" (your word) Diana for being "uneducated"; it was a statement. But to delete what else she said about Diana, and insist on including trivial spelling errors just because a newspaper published them, shows that you have certain points to prove. The community, as shown by numerous comments and edits, does not agree with your approach on this article, and you do not have sole control over it. If education of the Royal Family is to be written about, it needs a broader approach than yours.Parkwells (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite wrong, I have repeatedly said anyone can add any sourced content they want. So far no one has, you and the two other royal fanboys who have been canvassed here have only deleted content because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [7]. Sorry, we don't destroy knowledge because it's a celebrity's birthday. I have deleted nothing except unsourced editorializing. On WP we use sources. What's so difficult to understand about that? LavaBaron (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Parkwells, I've just deleted 800 bites of content you inserted that was sourced to the "Being Manly blog". This was not an attempt to eviscerate positive information about the royal family, this was a recognition that the "Being Manly blog" is not RS. You can expect I'll probably continue to delete unsourced content and content that is sourced to blogs, message board forum posts and letters to the editor in "Royal Fanzine Monthly". I hope you understand why this is happening, or review WP:RS, if not. LavaBaron (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are Princess Di's O-level exam notes spelling mistakes relevant to "Education of the British Royal Family"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In response to repeated blanking of this section this RfC has been opened. This is currently included in "Analysis" -

• Monica Ali and Princess Michael of Kent have both criticized Diana, Princess of Wales as "uneducated" while Diana's immediate family members frequently referred to her as "the thick one". Diana repeatedly failed her O-level examinations (equivalent of a high school diploma) and later dropped out of school.[24] John Lanchester, however, has rebutted criticism of Diana by saying that, while failure on Diana's scale would normally mean one was "astoundingly stupid", Diana had intentionally avoided academic pursuits as part of a master plan not to "put a royal suitor off". (Diana's O-level exam notes were later discovered; in them she wrote about the "genious" [sic] of William Shakespeare and a philosopher she identified as "Aristocktile", but possibly meant Aristotle).

- should the final sentence (bolded) be included or deleted? Sources have been obfuscated for ease of reading but can be viewed here [8]. (Please do not delete content under active RfC until the RfC has been closed.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Include This appropriately sourced information provides balance in the form a necessary contextualizing sur-rebuttal to Lanchester's analysis. It is more current information than Lanchester had to go off when he made his comments so allows the reader access to pertinent information with which she can draw her own conclusion. We should not destroy knowledge on WP but seek to broaden and maximize access. LavaBaron (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK - undue emphasis on trivial details and text ostensibly about education but really ad hominem. No other encyclopedia woukd include this in an article. Whizz40 (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove it all I think Diana possibly had dyslexia. Her spelling certainly wasn't a reflection on the quality of her education. This article is very confused; it needs to decide whether it is about education or intelligence. At the moment it conflates the two. I changed the lead because it talked about education, but then we get a lecture about how stupid members of the Royal Family are, regardless of whether or not they had a formal education... Firebrace (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Great point, Firebrace. I'm curious to hear other's feedback first over the next few weeks, but am leaning heavily toward changing my !vote based on your analysis. LavaBaron (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remove per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. This appears an attempt to emphasize trivial facts to make a negative point about Diana. There is confusion of formal education with other issues.Parkwells (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove this sentence - The Mirror is a tabloid and this sentence seems to be based solely on it. Neutrality^talk 20:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. I agree with the above. It seems like undue emphasis on spelling mistakes. Tabloid snark really doesn't belong here. I would defer to the community on whether the rest of it belongs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove As trivial tabloid 'snark'. Non-Royalist Brit, who despite this thinks this is unworthy of mention. BTW Reading the 'Princess Michael' source, it is clearly NOT criticism of D's lack of education, to say so is WP:SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Along with other obvious reasons, many very well educated and intelligent people have terrible trouble with spelling -- or writing in general, or reading, or following maps, or arithmetic, or using sources appropriately to write a balanced Wikipedia article, any number of other isolated skills. EEng 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been five days since opinions have been expressed; editors are overwhelmingly in favor of removing the content and cite about Diana's misspellings. It's time to get on with this, and do so.Parkwells (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remove Trivial detail, which adds no information of value. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Expanded discussion

• There is a larger issue in this section than just whether the quote about the misspellings should be retained, and this is characteristic of the article overall. There is an inappropriate use of sources. Monica Ali did not "criticise" Diana for being uneducated; she stated what was commonly known as a fact. There was no argument about that. Ali was writing a broader article that assessed Diana's role in the royal family, referring to more than her education and to her positive personal influence that she asserted later in life. This is not a "fandom" article. In addition, it was Diana herself, in tapes released in the US in 2004, who said that her family members used to call her thick, contributing to her sense of inferiority. LavaBaron deleted my and other editors' efforts to add more context to this section, and now has called an Rfc only on the quote about Diana's misspellings. The entire paragraph needs to be reworked for improvement, as does much of this article if it is to have any value.Parkwells (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I have deleted in this article is unsourced content. If you can prove otherwise, provide diffs. Otherwise retract this baseless personal attack immediately. You and the other two royal fanboys who were canvassed here have blanked entire sections because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [9]. We don't destroy knowledge because it's a celebrity's birthday. Update - I just deleted 800 bites of content sourced to the "Being Manly Blog" which you added [10]. The "Being Manly Blog" is not RS and the fact you seem not to comprehend that calls into question your qualifications to edit WP. LavaBaron (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't describe me as one of the fanboys; I was not part of a canvass and didn't know it was the queen's birthday. I discussed the article above, trying to improve its accuracy and value.Parkwells (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If the shoe fits. You have manically attempted to insert paragraphs worth of fluff cited to a free blogspot blog called "Art of Manliness" while simultaneously arguing the San Jose Mercury News is not RS. It seems like you're here to promotionalize your favorite celebrity family, not improve Wikipedia. LavaBaron (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the escalating language of personal attacks against me and other editors who are working on this article. The blog had useful facts about the education of two other members of the royal family, which would appear to be on topic for this article, if the article indeed is supposed to be serious. I found other sources for those facts and added them, well before several of your repeated references to this.Parkwells (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Parkwells - "Being Manly Blog" at blogspot.com is not WP:RS. Serious articles cite reliable sources, not free blogspot.com blogs, even if "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [11]. Observing that something called "Being Manly Blog" is not RS does not constitute a "personal attack". Sorry if you feel it does. Hope you feel better. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither Ali nor Michael of Kent's seem to deserve the term 'criticism', both are stating fact, Diana didn't have any higher education. I am one of the 'why on earth was everybody so besotted by her' faction but still find this whole discussion (and article?) cheap and inconsequential. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

@Firebrace: No other encyclopedia would open an article on education of the british royal family with this sentence. given all the exisiting discussion on Talk this change is uncontructive in moving towards consensus in my view, and detrimental to article quality - a five paragraph lead for a short article is also excessive. Whizz40 (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's just dial it back a bit, Whizz40. Yelling at everyone isn't going to change the emerging consensus. There is room for improvement, sure, but we have too many other issues you've manufactured that need to be worked through first, unfortunately. One thing at a time, this isn't a race. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, this reads like a personal attack against me to a constructive message I left on Talk to Firebace. @ Firebace, following on from your comment in the section above, my understanding is this article is about eduction not intelligence, per the article title. The opening sentence should define the topic, which the previous wording did. With the article at its current length, a short lead and History section would do the job nicely. Whizz40 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. No one is attacking you, no one is out to get you. Can you please begin a comment in some way that doesn't start with you loudly declaring you've been attacked? Anyway, I agree the current LEDE is not ideal but this seems to be what happens when editors decide to edit war, we get the worst of all worlds. It's too bad, the original article was quite good. In the interest of calming things down here, I oppose any changes for the time being until the RfCs have worked their way to finish. This isn't a race. LavaBaron (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Whizz40, starting an article with such a non-neutral statement of opinion is not encyclopaedic. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It is, however, the gist of the article... Firebrace (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Absolutelypuremilk and have corrected this BLP-violating lede introduced by Firebrace. LavaBaron (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair point by Firebrace, and this exemplifies a key issue with the article - it is not being written from a neutral point of view. Whizz40 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL. A WP:POINTY edit by someone who thinks the article is not being written from NPOV does not mean the article is not being written from NPOV. LavaBaron (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Add content about degrees of princesses

I am trying to add content about Beatrice and Eugenie having achieved degrees. Yes, the article was by the Daily Mail, but it dealt with facts of record. If editors are going to delete the "Mail" for this content, then plan to delete it for all other content, as other editors have used it as an RS. Let's try to get some material added to this article to provide a larger view of the family.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Daily Mail is not RS. Neither is the "Being Manly" [12] blog which you recently used to source large volumes of content. If we decide Daily Mail is RS, we'll need to reinsert its expose on William's admittance to Cantab which was eviscerated because it was the Daily Mail. LavaBaron (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

One, I did not add "a large volume of content" from Boddice's blog, but facts about 2 royals who had gained degrees: one an honorary degree, and in 1966, Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester) earning a degree in architecture from Cambridge, and a general statement, which is obvious in the careers of the men, that many royals had military careers.Parkwells (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The use of the Daily Mail was not the reason that the content was opposed about criticism of William being admitted to an ag program, but the trivial nature of the content. Who decided the Daily Mail was not RS? I agree it is a tabloid, but it is used as a source in other articles on the royals. You don't have to publish everything that is reported. Are you suggesting that the princesses' gaining college degrees is not worth reporting in terms of the current generation? Parkwells (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes it was, that was the edit summary. LavaBaron (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know those are "facts" as they were "published" on a free blogspot blog. People claim Barack Obama is a shapeshifting alien on free blogspots blogs, that's not a "fact" either. Find a RS. LavaBaron (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Surely the Contra Costa Times and an article said to be "compiled" by the reporter do not meet your standards for RS. She refers to articles in The Guardian and others on the William dust-up; does not appear to meet standards for an independent RS. SeeTatko-Peterson, Ann. "Prince William not smart enough for Cambridge University?". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 14 April 2016. It is pointless to add this to the William material.Parkwells (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Include San Jose Mercury News Source The San Jose Mercury News has never been questioned as a RS. It is a (a) daily newspaper, (b) has regular editorial controls, (c) founded in 1851 it has a circulation of 527,568, (d) it is a member newspaper of the Associated Press. It's definitely better than the "Being Manly Blog". This is not a legitimate discussion even. But take it to the RS noticeboard if you like. You need to understand that just because "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [13] does not give you license to puff up the article into a promotional piece for the royal family by deleting RS like the San Jose Mercury News and inserting royal blogs like "Being Manly blog". LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The San Jose Mercury just reprinted the article from the Contra Costa Times, hardly a national media outlet. I know nothing about the queen's birthday, but was struck in this article by your eagerness to add material that is critical of the family. Among such examples is repeating coverage of a rumor in 2016 about Prince Harry's possibly going to Yale, which seemed to be an opportunity to add quotes from the university paper about his lack of affinity for academic work. This seems to be an example of negative "puff" -it wastes article space to use it on such a rumor.Parkwells (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The SJSMN applies editorial controls in articles it chooses to syndicate. Plus the Contra Costa Times is a localized edition of the SJSMN so this is irrelevant anyway. This isn't like the "Art of Manliness blog" you tried to source several paragraphs of fluff to. LavaBaron (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest deleting content about 2016 rumor of Harry at Yale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To waste space on a brief rumor in 2016 that Harry might go to Yale seems trivializing if this article is to have much value. I recommend that content be deleted. Just because it has a source does not mean it's worth including; it looks as if the editor who added it is trying to get in another dig at the royals' lack of academic prowess.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Besides, the whole idea of Harry not being good enough for Yale makes no sense -- anyone can get into Yale. George W. Bush got into Yale, for chrissakes. EEng 18:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and his gentleman's "C"s show that not only the British dynasty had people who did not do well in academia.Parkwells (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a "rumor" if a government commission issued a ruling on it. Please do not destroy knowledge that is properly sourced because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LavaBaron (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC).

A brief rumor about Harry possibly going to Yale is not holy knowledge, and your source (if it's yours) says nothing about any commission ruling on this. Wikipedia does not have to repeat rumors just because they have been published. What was the point of this, to repeat that Harry's friends didn't think it likely he wanted to go to law school? Trivial.Parkwells (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I recommend deleting this paragraph about the rumor of Harry at Yale. It adds nothing to the article.Parkwells (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No objection as to deleting the paragraph re Yale from me, Parkwells. I'd think you can safely be WP:BOLD about it. LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Make wording consistent with sources

Monica Ali and Princess Michael of Kent described Diana as "uneducated." This appears to be a fact that no one argues with. But an editor here keeps using his term, as they "criticised" her for this. Neither source suggests the statement is a criticism and the one about the Princess itself uses the word "described." I suggest that the word be changed, as below. I also noted that, based on the source, it is Diana who said herself (on a tape released in 2004) that family members referred to her as thick, suggesting why she felt inferior. My recommended wording: "Monica Ali and Princess Michael of Kent have both described Diana, Princess of Wales as "uneducated." According to tapes, Diana said that her immediate family members frequently referred to her as "the thick one"." I think there should be more effort for editors to use neutral language in this article.Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No objection to this change. One can recommend improvements to this article without casting wild accusations and alleging conspiracies by editors to impugn the royal family. LavaBaron (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Uneducated" is Yahoo's clickbaity paraphrasing. PMK actually said, "[Diana] did not have a mother bring her up and she did not have much education, so it is much harder to cope with eulogy". I'm petty sure that falsely attributing a quote to a living person is against some policy. Firebrace (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Uneducated" is an accurate paraphrase of "did not have education". It is not our job to get into the minds of RS editors. LavaBaron (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

She didn't say "did not have education", she said "did not have MUCH education". You misrepresented what they all said and gave no context for why they said it. No one "criticized" Princess Diana – if you READ the sources they were actually being kind. And "Princess Mike of Kent" is still there if you bother to look. You need to take a step back and leave it to people who know what they are doing. The article is a disaster in your hands. Firebrace (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Firebrace - we all appreciate your passion for this topic but, perhaps, would you consider dialing it back a bit? Your last comment is a bit much. Also, the article is not "in my hands" - a variety of editors are collaboratively working on it, as we do here on WP. And, yes, Princess Mike is still there since I added her back in. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What Firebrace means is that it was a disaster when left in your hands before, and would be again if left in your hands now. Here's what it looked like when, incredibly, you nominated it for DYK.[14]. EEng 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Credentials

As per our article, a credential is "an attestation of qualification, competence, or authority issued to an individual by a third party with a relevant or de facto authority or assumed competence to do so". I am good at repairing cars, and was taught how to do so by a person who is also good at repairing cars, but I don't have a credential in auto repair. My mechanic does have credentials in auto repair in the form of a state-issued license to conduct it and a qualification (probably a vocational certificate) from an accredited institution in the subject. Being good at French, basketweaving, gardening, etc., is not a credential. Having a certificate, diploma, or degree in those subjects would be a credential. LavaBaron (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

'Observers views' section

The 'Observers views' section seems out of place in the current structure of the article and I suggest its content should be merged into the other sections.

I have several issues with it as it stands:

• Most of the people discussed within it are already covered in the earlier sections and it seems logical to group the information about each person together.
• Some of the entries use different titles to that used for the same person in a previous section, which is confusing. For instance a non-British reader may well not appreciate that William, Duke of Cambridge is actually the same person referred to as Prince William of Wales in the earlier section.
• The people chosen to appear in this section seem fairly randomly chosen. We have the current Queen, her great-grandfather, one of her four children, the deceased first wife of another of her children (who wasn't a member of the Royal family at the time of her education, incidentally) and two of her eight grandchildren.

With most articles I'd 'boldly' merge the content into the previous sections, but I'm well aware that recent history suggests doing so on this article may ignite an edit war, so I thought I'd canvass opinions first. Neiltonks (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I made the same suggestion above - I agree that we should merge/fold the "Observers' views" section into the general "history" suggestion. Neutrality^talk 16:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree; the people selected randomly for comment seem to be those about whom an editor has found critical comment. The topic is narrowly construed; while on one hand the opening sections suggest there will be a discussion of education in terms of ideas of the monarchy's role, there is little content about these individuals in terms of qualities they may have or other achievements that relate to being effective leaders of the monarchy despite not having sterling academic educations.Parkwells (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've boldly merged the sections. Neutrality^talk 18:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign

Hi, just looked into this - a campaign for ideas on "dealing with harassment" on Wiki projects. One was "Don't feed the trolls" - easier said than done when some of the editors are trying to get work done, and one is disruptive. But editors may like to look at this project and posted ideas - everyone can contribute other ideas as well as help develop these for action. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls>Parkwells (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Windsor

The then-Prince of Wales attended Magdalen College, Oxford, for eight terms, though he did not qualify. This mention would fit naturally into the story. Valetude (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Would need a source. Also, which "then" are we discussing? And thirdly, do we mean that he did not meet the entry requirements at the time, or do we mean that he did not graduate? MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The 'then' means the Duke of Windsor when he was Prince of Wales. He then entered Magdalen College, Oxford, for which, in the opinion of his biographers, he was underprepared intellectually. A keen horseman, he learned how to play polo with the university club. He left Oxford after eight terms, without any academic qualifications. All of this is well-attested, and I can't see why it needs cites. Valetude (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

By the time he went up to Trinity College, Cambridge in 1919 with his brother Albert, Henry had outgrown all his brothers, both in height and size, and enjoyed very good health. Their stay at Cambridge lasted just one year and was very uneventful for both of them, as they were not allowed to live in college with the other undergraduates, due to their father's fear of their mixing with undesirable company.

Right. There have been many Dukes of Windsor. There have been many Princes of Wales. It is not so hard to explain who and what you mean. And if your source is "Polo Monthly" from 1914, then I think you need a better source. MPS1992 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What an extraordinary reaction, MPS. It's certainly news to me that there have been 'many Dukes of Windsor'. (You might care to name one.) And nobody has ever queried the well-known fact that the Duke attended Oxford University. All the facts I've quoted on this page come direct from Wikipedia itself. It is those sources you should be questioning. Valetude (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, including this one. See WP:CIRCULAR. MPS1992 (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

References