Talk:Patrick Stewart burial controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reversion[edit]

I have reverted the last edit. Firstly the 'new information' is totally unsourced. It looks useful but must be externally sourced if it is to remain. The 'Background' section is a straight lift from a website and therefore a copyvio. It is also messy. Additonal facts from this section should be integrated into the article more cleanly. --BlueValour 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

I think this article should be renamed. It doesn't make sense to have included his military rank. I suggest renaming it to Patrick Stewart (Wiccan).--KrossTalk 06:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the article being renamed. However, I strongly prefer Patrick Stewart (US Army). BlueValour 15:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Stewart (soldier)? Not sure I've seen any articles disambiguated with US Army...but I agree it needs to be renamed. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sources[edit]

Philadelphia Inquirer Sat july 15 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/religion/15043392.htm Another new source this from the BBC on this issue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5405328.stm Hypnosadist 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Move[edit]

OPPOSE His rank is important as it is part of why he died, and i just don't see a reason for the move.Hypnosadist 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we don't generally include ranks with article titles (but they do frequently go in the first sentence). See George II, Julius Caesar, etc. No one is saying that we downplay his rank or service, only that the article title conform to general standards. -- nae'blis 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my own nomination and statements above, obviously. -- nae'blis 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BlueValour 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article names should be First Last (DistinguishingNoun). See Alvin York. However, if the Sgt. part is how he is generally known, a redirect as in Sgt. York would be totally appropriate. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - after Move a redirect with the present article title is automagically created. BlueValour 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok i see your points, can we have (wiccan soldier) or (US Army/Wiccan) not just soldier as both are part of his Notability and life. If that can be done i would change my vote.Hypnosadist 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, I would just go (soldier), to differentiate between Patrick Stewart (actor). I think this is a case where less is more. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok move it but i think US Army is better that soldier.Hypnosadist 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose extra links. There has been no need for these links up to now and I don't like creating links for the sake of it. The original article will continue as a link after the move. I also think that identifying someone by their religion is somewhat unencyclopaedic. BlueValour 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiccan one, in particular, makes sense because he's partially famous because of his religious affiliation. I wouldn't want to do it for every article, but this'll improve our search engine results in this case. I'm ambivalent on the US Army one, and won't create it myself. Redirects are cheap, and help keep us from getting duplicate articles. -- nae'blis 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although the title looks better with his military rank than it would with a disamb word in brackets, no WP article uses titles. Patrick Stewart (Wiccan) wouldn't do, because it is more common to disambiguate by occupation than by religion (and, as a matter of fact, do we know the religion of the other Stewart? What if he's a Wiccan, too? :-) – Alensha  talk 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. (US Army) is too specific, unless there are two notable persons with that name in different militaries. I think a redirect (Wiccan) is appropriate, though. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture and separation....[edit]

Is there a reason why a picture of the man's wife is on the article?

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for her, but the article is about him. CatherS 06:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that the article, and Stewart's noteworthiness in general, has to do with what happened after he died, it does make sense to me that the picture of his wife with a wreath for his grave has a place on this page. I do think, however, that getting a photo of the man himself would be most appropriate.Kenllama/(talk) 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refused?[edit]

Just checking this one - someone may be able to clarify it a little. Is it true to say that the Veterans' Association refused to allow the use of the pentagram? Or is it - as I understood it at the time - more that the pentagram at that time hadn't been pre-approved and thus had to go through the lengthy approval process before it could be used?

If the VA did refuse at first, then by all means let's say so, but we should have a cite for that. If it was a case of going through the clearing process, then the worst that can be said was that it was down to bureaucracy, and it's unfair to claim that they 'refused'. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some digging but can't find anything that gives me a clue exactly what the problem was. The original lawsuit, as reported by the BBC, said that the VA had been 'making excuses' for nine years, but doesn't give any more info. Every neopagan/Wiccan website I've looked at presents it as an example of persecution, and with the best will in the world I can't rely on that assessment without independent confirmation (many of those sites also spoke confidently about the 'Burning Times', etc). The VA don't seem to have anything on their site about it aside from the listing of the pentagram as a (now) permitted symbol. - Shrivenzale (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the VA doesn't have anything on their site about it. Does McDonald's have anything on their webpage about having served coffee at third degree burn temperatures? If you look at http://www.paganvets.org , there is more information regarding the issue, to include how the standards for what would be approved first: weren't enumerated, then were created, then were "undergoing revision", during which time no further new symbols would be added (though some were). also try http://www.religioustolerance.org/grav_mark.htm As for saying the VA refused, I wouldn't call it unfair, but it may not be neutral. We can say that various groups involved in the process felt they were being stonewalled, as that's shown on a number of the better written sites.
This campaign started when in 1989, Rosemary Kooiman, wife of Abe Kooiman (who passed away in 2002), submitted a request for her now deceased husband, a veteran. She was unable to obtain a headstone with a Pentagram on it...the symbol of her and Abe's religion. For over 10 years, she has been getting the response that the Veteran's Administration was updating its regulations on religious symbols and that once that was done, the symbol would get approved. Over ten years later, there have been no rules changes and no pentagrams approved... and we keep getting the same answers. Unfortunately Rosemary passed away before she could see this to fruition.
--Vidkun (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course the VA doesn't have anything on their site about it. Does McDonald's have anything on their webpage about having served coffee at third degree burn temperatures?"
There's nothing to be lost from looking to see whether the VA address this on their site and, if so, what they have to say about it. I draw no conclusions from the lack of any reference on that site, except that there are no references there.
"As for saying the VA refused, I wouldn't call it unfair, but it may not be neutral"
My concern is simply that we represent a neutral point of view - which means not using any language that implies a conclusion that's assumed, rather than backed up with proper information. If we can find information to show that the VA refused, then let's say 'refused'. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true to say that the ACLU said the VA refused: Yet the agency has refused since the mid-1990s to act on requests by Wiccan families and clergy to approve use of the pentacle. In the meantime, the agency approved additional emblems of numerous other religions and belief systems as a matter of course, usually in a few months. http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/26970prs20060929.html --Vidkun (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thank you. I see this document was already linked to - I've made a minor tweak to use it as support for this specific statement. In view of this, I'm happy to say that they 'refused'. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. However, I'm not sure this article qualifies under the Military History project. The subject is not notable for his service in the military, more for the controversy surrounding the memorial to him as a person. --dashiellx (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

38 or 39 VA approved headstone symbols?[edit]

Religious_discrimination_against_Neopagans says 39... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

Although Roberta Stewart was not invited, President Bush later died.

Must be vandalism. Valetude (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patrick Stewart (soldier). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patrick Stewart (soldier). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Stewart_burial_controversy&oldid=1213018118"