Template:Did you know nominations/Education of the British Royal Family

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Education of the British Royal Family[edit]

(

)

... ~~that David Starkey has described the culture and intellect of Queen Elizabeth II as equivalent to a "housewife"?~~
ALT1 ... that Prince Charles, in 1970, became the first heir to the British throne to complete a university degree?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ieremia Cecan

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 22:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

@LavaBaron: 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"). E Eng 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)

The C of E - alt hook proposed LavaBaron (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Just a few more issues before I approve it, the "not known for its intellectual achievements" line seems to be a quote lifted from the Independent, a paper that doesn't have a favourable view on the monarchy which I believe falls foul of POV so could that line be reworded or removed before I can promote this? Also it does seem to have more WEIGHT towards criticism and doesn't mention the achievements in detail (ie. Princess Eugenie's success isn't mentioned yet is being used to source that POV quote and Princes William's degree). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence in question, The C of E. However, I did not include anything about Eugenie as that would be Undue. The article, in its current iteration, is about the principal heirs to the throne. We can certainly start digging down into the recesses of the line of succession until we come up with Stephen Hawking in position 23,211 but that seems like it would be cherry-picking. If we want to highlight Eugenie, the article needs to be expanded by someone else to go deep in the line of succession so that pointing out Eugenie wouldn't be undue. As it is, there is a lot of criticism in the article because there's been a lot of criticism in real life. WP articles reflect reality, not our hopes and dreams for how things could be in a better world. LavaBaron (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So there's no mistake, it's clear several experienced editors question the article's adherence to policies required under WP:DYKRULES, to wit:

Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.

See the above and the article's talk page. In addition, ALT0 certainly qualifies as a hook that "focuses unduly on negative aspects of living individuals". E Eng 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately this doesn't apply to this article because, (a) there is nothing unsourced, (b) both criticism and rebuttal of criticism is presented equally in the article. I understand you object to the inclusion of accurate content that, you believe, casts these celebrities in a negative light, however, accurate information about celebrity families (Windsors, Kardashians, etc.) is permitted on WP. I have undone your recent vandalism/whitewashing, and will continue to make undoing it a primary focus of my efforts on WP. LavaBaron (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't excuse WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, not does it make WP:BLP requirements vanish. The "balancing" material ("she has had the best education at the university of life") -- which you added only moments ago -- borders on damning with faint praise, and leaves the sources still far short of anything remotely like a serious consideration of one or several persons' education, whether they be the royal family or some individuals inadvertently in the spotlight.

As to whitewashing and your "primary focus" at WP, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (and better learn yourself what WP:VANDALISM really is, while you're at it). E Eng 05:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

True, however, since there are no WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, or WP:BLP issues in this article we don't need to sweat it. Next? LavaBaron (talk)

That still leaves Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided, though it may be that the article, as recently revised, barely squeaks by this. But then there's WP:NPOV. I suggest we wait to hear what others think. E Eng 05:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I reject your suggestion. (DYK is not the proper venue for general article chit-chat.) LavaBaron (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Following the clean-up and rebalancing of content, I am going to stick my neck out and pass ALT1. If any others feels that there still is a problem, I think it would be best take it to Wikipedia talk:DYK for a wider view. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I still have my concerns, but I'm happy after recent changes to defer to the opinion of another experienced editor like yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if continued concern is expressed at prep / Q. E Eng 12:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

not really worried about that in the least LavaBaron (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)