User talk:Gtyt67

Prince Philip

Hello. What you replaced in the article by reverting is already covered in the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Interests section. I see no need for it to be said twice, nor why something that refers to his later life should be chronologically misplaced in the section on his childhood. Do you see things otherwise? --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It appears that User:Surtsicna has noted the same thing as I did and removed the duplicate information. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't agree here. It seems to me that this is a detail of his personal life than relates to his historical circumstances and origins ; so that separating it off as an *interest* later on underplays that. Gtyt67

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that Philip had a strong Greek Othrodox faith at birth? Otherwise, the information is in the wrong area. If we don't know when the Duke first discovered his faith (which he would have to have done to later rediscover it), then mention of his interest in it later in life should go, well, later in the article. (PS - sign your posts with four tildes, or use the signature button above the editing window.) --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it , he considered himself formally Orthodox before marrying the queen ( as did the Palace ) , because of the circumstances of his birth, and rediscovered a practising interest again later in life. Surely this makes this detail relevant to this part of the article ? Gtyt67 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why. The section about his early life says nothing about his discovering of his Orthodox faith, so I can't see why it should mention his later rediscovery of said faith; at best, it seems random and, as I said, chronologically out of place. At worst, it appears as an attempt to claim without supporting evidence that Prince Philip discovered his Orthodox faith at his baptism. In the absence of reliable sources that outline Philip's spiritual evolution, the event of his rediscovering Greek Othodoxy should go exactly where it happened: later in his life. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, this makes no sense to me at all , & strikes me as equally promoting a reverse understatement for whatever reason. 1) He was a born into a non-Protestant environment and formally identified himself as such until marrying the queen, 2) He changed religion 3), he rediscovered an interest in his initial faith. How can something so fundamental , clearly officially and possible personally, only be relevant to a "hobbies" -style section of the article ? This seems to be clear POV. Gtyt67 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll first have to provide some sources to back up your claims about Philip's religious development before we proceed any futher along that path. In the meantime, I didn't say mention of his renewed faith had to go in the "Interests" section. It's merely out of place where you've put it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm really saying is that there are three things that are clearly linked - his orthodox birth and formal identifcation, the section of the article that runs " Louis Mountbatten urged Philip to renounce his Greek and Danish royal titles, as well as his allegiance to the Greek crown, and convert from Greek Orthodoxy to the Church of England]", and his current stance of ploughing money into Mount Athos and various orthodox instutions (mentioned in the ref I think). I think this makes the question of orthodox * faith* / identification mentioned in the original sentence more relevant than his who/ where christened him in Corfu. Gtyt67 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other solutions to this. I'm going to move this discussion to the article talk page, though; if you don't mind. It might help to have more people see this and chime in with their opinion. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Gtyt67 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]