Talk:Edward V - Knowledge

676:

fates of Henry VI and Edward Prince of Wales) and Michael Hicks in particular, with good helpings from Horrox and Weir, not to mention Baldwin's book rather than his BBC article. There's also a fairly recent, more sympathetic biography of Richard by Carson that might be worth mining.' In particular, it is surprising that although Hicks' biography of Edward is mentioned in the bibliography, it is not referenced in the article. Admittedly, that is partly because there is a paucity of information on Edward and therefore it is almost a narrative of the political situation, but it should still be the key source rather than a throwaway line at the bottom.

741:) is that Richard is by far the likeliest suspect and to put forward anyone else as a 'principal' suspect is therefore dubious. My recommendation would be for something along the lines of 'Richard III is the man most usually identified by historians as a possible murderer, but other theories have been advanced implicating (among others) Buckingham, Tyrell, Henry Tudor and Margaret Beaufort.' (I wouldn't personally bother with Beaufort, but since you won't have it any other way, I'm willing to compromise.) That would represent the historical consensus but the article as it stands does not. If that is acceptable to you, please make the change. 410: 389: 228: 903:

one-off users who've been reading the Daily Mail or Josephine Tey and taken these versions of the truth at face value. The supposed "new evidence" trumpeted by Philippa Langley herself, Channel 4 and her publishers really doesn't stand much scrutiny, but is intended to catch the eye of those who have a fleeting and superficial interest in history and like conspiracy theories. That's the reason these articles need protection until the fuss dies down. See the verdict from impartial sources such as

498: 420: 576: 305: 284: 1659:. Nobody knows who or what "Edward V" is. There's no indication "V" is a numeral rather than an initial, there's no indication this guys is monarch. All articles about him (certainly outside of Britain) refer to him as "Edward V, King of England", or at least "King Edward V", for which "Edward V of England" is our concise version. But "Edward V" by itself is a mystery. Try searching for "Edward V" 252: 166: 138: 3012: 2940: 1094: 971:(showing "clear evidence" that it was present in England in the 1300s, and in Ancient Greece as well), as if that turned 500 years of historical evidence on its head. The evidence presented isn't wrong, it's just misinterpreted. That appears to be the case here as well. National Geographics take Langley's theory at face value, by the way. That doesn't make it easier to judge its veracity! 315: 22: 808:, published 20 November 2023, which includes a high resolution photograph of the document discovered in May 2020 at the archive of Lille in France (announced in November 2023) that proves that Edward V. was alive as of 16 December 1487 (sic). There is a second document, found in November 2020 at an archive in the Netherlands, similarly showing that his brother 176: 74: 53: 986:"Princes in the Tower: New Evidence Revealed". The timestamp for the part where Langley explains who was involved in verifying the authenticity of the finds is 35:30. A book was also released with all the evidence found and detailed, called "The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Biggest Cold Case". 3051:

The second and third of these corrections can easily be justified by looking at the image of the epitaph supplied in the article with a modicum of magnification. The first is just a matter of consistency in the use of the letter "u" for the inscribed letter "v", and can be easily confirmed by looking

1010:

As for the interview with David Pilling, his main point is that it's more believable that the documents are totally authentic forgeries from the right time as these kinds of forgeries were "extremely common", as opposed to the documents being exactly what they say they are. He fails to elaborate that

985:

In an episode of the Gone Medieval podcast last year, Langley is being interviewed about these discoveries. She explains who determined that these documents are authentic, and how. If needed, I can link the episode number and the timestamps. Edit: The podcast episode is from November 16, 2023, titled

751:

Can this article be updated a bit more related to the Missing Princes Project and Phillipa Langley's work, which found multiple documents proving that Edward V survived until at least 1487, and also found a 4-page diary from Richard of Shrewsbury? There's plenty of sources to pull from now, including

694:

My concern is for the neutrality of the article and for wikipedia's policies; which I will continue to defend. You must realise how ridiculous it looks for a wikipedia article (not just this one) to claim to have "solved" a mystery which has remained unsolved for hundreds of years and which continues

2194:

No, the fact that a concise form redirects to a longer one is merely proof that the topic is primary for its concise name – which is one of the two criteria to be considered when assessing whether "of country" is needed. And as we've covered before, Britannia's clarifiers are comparable to wikipedia

1050:

Expanding on that "vested interest" train of thought, that would also make David Pilling more interested in arguing for the generally accepted stance of Richard III murdering his nephews, just like it was "better" to argue a bit over a decade ago that Richard III's body will not be found and that it

948:

You know, I'm not sure that any reputable periodicals (other than National Geographic, which I can't view) have covered it in any depth, though no doubt they will when there's been time to assess the pros and cons. Reporters on local newspapers don't usually have much of a handle on topics like this

736:

Rushton, I have read them and I am following them. I am using established secondary literature to improve the article. You, on the other hand, are using what amounts to a blog post on the BBC (see WP:RS) as a main source to promote a fringe theory here and on other pages, which I would remind you is

2971:

Edward V was never crowned, and his brief reign was dominated by the influence of his uncle and Lord Protector, the Duke of Gloucester, who deposed him to reign as King Richard III; this was confirmed by the Titulus Regius, an Act of Parliament which denounced any further claims through Edward IV's

2516:

does apply because “of country” in this case is not disambiguation. The passage you cite from WP:CONSISTENT refers to cases where we must add either parenthetical or natural disambiguation in order to distinguish otherwise identical titles, but here there are no other “Edward V” articles that we’re

1764:

As for NCROY, the RFC in November was evidently an ill-thought mistake pushed by a narrow margin by a small group, which has been obviously disastrous and does not reflect wider community consensus. I have already asked to reopen that RFC, and am simply waiting for more feedback for where it should

1006:

Re: the two articles you mentioned. You call the Spectator article "impartial", but the title is already super partial: "Of course Richard III killed the Princes in the Tower", then it proceeds to call Philippa Langley's discovery "nonsense" in just the third paragraph. I'm not sure how this can be

933:

article mentions alternative theories, including Langley's. Maybe we can use that as a blueprint, although I suspect that article may need to be edited as well, if anything to include criticism of Langley's work. The Spectator article, for instance, is not mentioned there, and neither are any other

712:

And on a lesser note.... you hilarious rambling that the article relies on Philipa Gregory; have you read the article? Clearly not seeing as her only mention is the Portrayals in Fiction section. "In the 2013 TV series The White Queen, an adaptation of Philippa Gregory's historical novel series The

675:

I've put some suggestions on the Talk Page of the Princes in the Tower, as follows: 'I think more material should be incorporated from Desmond Seward (although I'm a little uncomfortable with some of his very partisan and in my view less than brilliantly sourced conclusions, particularly around the

2717:

before (most recently in their comment from 18:36, 7 March 2024), the policy to maximize usefulness for the reader trumps any convention (or guideline) -- hence why I argued for ignoring it. Whether the convention itself is good is a different question, and I'm not really interested in discussing

2143:

because "it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed". The opening rationale is unpersuasive and the naming convention is largely defunct now that so many articles have been moved to titles that are inconsistent with each other. When naming conventions lapse or become obsolete, they should be

2347:

You’re welcome to that opinion. Mine is that having a clarifier that identifies the country (as we have now) improves the reader’s experience, which per policy is our priority. Various encyclopedias do this in various ways, but the move proposed here means that we would not, and I see that as a

2019:

Had I assumed that everyone knew of Edward, as a prince in the tower or otherwise, that would merely have been bias toward people with a knowledge of history, not any sort of NPOV bias, but in any case I wasn't making any such assumption, merely emphasising his long-term significance. The point

902:

This and all other articles relating to Richard III and/or the Princes in the Tower have been subject to the frequent addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced material, and as a result have been protected or semi-protected many times. Unfortunately, this material often comes from anonymous IPs -

841:

There are book reviews in The Times and other publications, but none that I could find are accessible without a subscription. While I am not ready to believe the full length of the conclusions that Langley draws, I think she generally is a credible source, having previously been involved in the

830:

It is a witness statement written in the first person and records Richard, Duke of York’s story from the point at which he left sanctuary in Westminster in London as a 9 year-old boy in 1483, to his arrival at the court of his aunt, Margaret of York, in Burgundy in 1493. The witness statement

747:

I would be extremely grateful, however, if you could investigate the literature more thoroughly and improve the article and indeed the one on the Princes in the Tower, because both undoubtedly need it. There is further suggested reading on the subject on the talk page there (including direct

1745:

who or what "Edward V" is about. I know "Edward V of England", "Edward V, King of England", perhaps even "King Edward V", but I don't know who or what "Edward V" refers to. Is it a submarine? A movie? A Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg? Because no one - absolutely no one - refers to Edward V

1058:

needs to be taken as gospel, I'm saying that the work she already put in along with the evidence she found needs to be mentioned, as it directly relates to Edward V. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to say that her theory is currently under scrutiny by the professional community.

695:

to provoke debate, books, documentaries and countless different theories. I'm very glad someone is looking to expand the article. It needs extra references: the disappearance section is the only one with proper referencing. I will look at the authors you suggest and see what can be added.

2333:. In the UK, access is provided through our local library online service, but since Britannica is a US company, I would have thought the service would be available to you also. I don't agree that having a clarifier is common and valuable, I would say it's uncommon and useless. 1035:

is an impartial source, which has no vested interest in arguing either way, whereas Langley is bound to support her own theories. And I think you are saying that you are prepared to accept David Pilling's findings when they coincide with Langley's, but not when they don't.

842:

successful search for the remains of Richard III. And the documentary evidence (found by other members of her research group) is probably hard to refute. We shouldn't give undue weight to it either, especially considering how new it is, but mentioning it is in order.

642:

Some peer reviewed research, rather than Rushton2010's heavy over-reliance on the BBC's website, would be encouraging. It might even lead to a marked improvement in the quality of the article rather than concentrating on the weird ramblings of Philippa Gregory.

2790:

Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah) and Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Knowledge:Naming conventions

1664: 2770:

is also totally unambiguous but isn't the title that best serves our readers, meets an encyclopedic register, satisfies our WP:CRITERIA, etc. Likewise, the concern here is that removing the clarifier would leave us with a title that doesn’t

2266:, it is solely Edward V as it is at Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.com, ODNB, Oxford Companion to British History, Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance, Dictionary of World History, World Encyclopedia, Canadian Oxford Dictionary, etc. 887:

It was you who protected the article. Do you think that needs to be kept in place? The protection seems to have been based on edits from a single IP that look constructive enough to me. I would kindly ask for the protection to be lifted.

2967:

Change “Edward's eldest sister.” to “Edward's eldest daughter.” In the following paragraph. I believe this was a typo as Henry VII married Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth of York, not his sister who’s was Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy.

950: 907:. I don't disagree that the article needs updating, and that the latest theory should be mentioned, but the job needs to be tackled by autoconfirmed users who understand the problems relating to the topic and how to comply with 2172:

for the surrounding Edwards, it’s most consistent to retain it for these two as well, and doing so is in no way impractical. Including the country also yields a title that better serves the interests of our readers (which

2236:

Re “of country”, no: it’s neither a parenthetical disambiguator nor a means of naturally disambiguating between multiple articles with otherwise identical titles, which is what the passage about dabs addresses. Hence the

1580:

We also don't call him "Joe 46". Joe Biden has a surname - "Biden" - which renders him recognizable. "V" is not a last name, it's a number. "Of England" serves as his de facto surname and makes him recognizable.

2644:

shouldn't be invoked except on a very occasional basis, and only for exceptions to the rule backed by a strong case-by-case rationale. I see no suggestion that Edward V is an exception to the rule. If you believe

833:

A full transcription of the text of that document is given in Appendix 5 of Langley's book. The 1487 document about Edward V. is transcribed in Appendix 2. As a citation for the 1493 document, one might use

2329:. Britannica Library provides three reading levels of articles depending on the reader, ie junior, young student and adult. The adult version is the version that appears in the print copy and does not use 2525:, such as the requirements to prioritize reader benefit, follow an encyclopedic register, etc. As such, it’s entirely appropriate (and desirable) to favor a consistency of form among like articles. 3042:

First, since the carved letter "v" is used for "u" in the epitaph, but is transcribed as "u" where appropriate, the first word in the phrase "div et multum quæsita" should be transcribed "diu".

1014:

His tone just reminds of those grumpy historians who already scoffed at the idea that a laywoman would be able to find Richard III's body, and some of them actively tried to hinder her progress.

836:

Nathalie Nijman-Bliekendaal, Research Report 21 November 2020: Gelders Archief, 0510 ‘Diverse Charters en Aanwinsten ’, nr 1549: Verhandelingen over de lotgevallen van Richard van York, ca 1500

737:

entirely contrary to WP policies. Nowhere have I claimed, or tried to claim, that the matter has been 'solved', but the overwhelming historical consensus (which is what WP should reflect: see

3048:

Finally, in the phrase "Carolus II Rex clementissimu sacerbam sortem miseratus", the words are improperly segmented, and should read "Carolus II Rex clementissimus acerbam sortem miseratus".

824:'s book that is curiously already cited in the Knowledge article about Richard, but leaving out what may be its most important conclusions. There is also an interview with the author by the 2972:

heirs by delegitimising Edward V and all of his siblings. This was later repealed by Henry VII, who wished to legitimise his reign by marrying Elizabeth of York, Edward's eldest sister.

828:

in which she gives some further details. Alongside a photograph, Langley's website gives the following summary of the 1493 four-page document (about Richard, not his brother Edward V.):

1987:, or that readers might be searching for the politician using the search term "Edward V", is ridiculous, and there's no bias involved in suggesting that the king is the primary topic. 1615:

HouseBlaster: What? We go beyond the most concise recognizable form all the time. For instance, there’s no technical reason why we couldn’t title our article on the 36th president “

3045:

Second, in the parenthetical phrase "(scala istæ ad Sacellum Turris Albæ nuper ducebant)", the first word should be transcribed with the "ae" ligature as the last letter, "scalæ".

1761:"Of England" performs the same function as "Traynor". It is the surname that let us distinguish this "Philip A" from other "Philip As", and this "Edward V" from other "Edward Vs". 929:. Do you have an alternative to The Spectator that is available without a subscription? I cannot subscribe to them from my location, so I can't check what they say about it. The 2304:

is for grown-ups.) Suffice to say that having some form of clarifier is common and valuable, and I don’t see that deliberately showing none at all is in our readers’ interests.

3115: 3100: 266: 242: 3105: 1492:) the vast majority of the recent RMs have nonetheless concluded that there is consensus to drop "of country" when the monarch's name is unambiguous or is the primary topic. 2229:. Most of our readers don’t even see them, so removing the clarifier from the title would result in most getting no clarifier whatsoever. That’s distinctly different from 3135: 953:, by a somewhat obscure but apparently reputable historian called David Pilling (not the journalist), probably would not be admissible because it's more or less a blog. 361: 1979:

There is only one person in history known as "Edward V". The suggestion that there is a serious risk of readers confusing the king (well known to history as one of the

3080: 2135:. I see no benefit from trying to reduce the article title to as few words as possible, when the article title is already short. As has been pointed out, we don't use 110: 2005:

bias in assuming that everyone else knows this. Most people, even in the UK, could not tell you even the first names of the two princes, let alone his regnal number.

967:

Thanks for the link to the blog. It's a pity how Channel 4 documentaries sometimes run with these revolutionary ideas. I remember a documentary about the origins of

1149: 717:

And thanks Nev for you offer to give me access to that source. I already have access to it and most of the other online subscription based sites: Jstor and such.

1632:

My reply is solely focused on the fact that we do not clarify someone's location in non-royal biography titles. We don't write "Joe Biden of the United States".

3150: 3110: 3095: 3085: 2181:). And finally, the fact that a concise primary form redirects to a longer one has nothing to do with whether the shorter form is the most suitable title (e.g. 466: 2595:

in reliable sources. As usual in this recent plethora of monarch RMs, there is little policy or guideline justification present in the oppose !votes, just an

476: 237: 148: 2319:

Columbia, for instance, explicitly notes right above the title that it’s a "British and Irish History: Biographies" article, which makes the context clear.

1965:

Acting as though everyone outside England instinctively knows that Edward V means Edward V of England is certainly bias, even if you genuinely believe it.

3160: 1255: 261: 152: 120: 1901:

per the policy on sovereigns and similar move outcomes. Some of the opposition is ridiculous, nobody will mistake him for the fifth Earl of Liverpool.

697:

I would strongly recommend you (anon IP) read and respect wikipedia's policies. We all tear our hair out at some of them, but they must be followed. --

3130: 3075: 1915:

Otherwise known as hyperbole, to illustrate the paucity of logic behind the original nomination and the seriousness with which it should be treated.

2286:, for instance, explicitly notes right above the title that it’s a "British and Irish History: Biographies" article, which makes the context clear. 371: 1713:

make it easier to identify he was a politician? Sure. But we don't clarify peoples' "jobs" in the title. We rely on the first sentence to do that.

3125: 194: 3052:

up "diu" in any Latin dictionary and comparing it with the English translation already in the article, where it is rendered correctly as "long".

2681:

refers are intended to include both policies and guidelines. I don't see either Edward V or Edward I as exceptions that would justify ignoring

1863: 1295: 442: 3145: 2107: 1303: 1283: 1263: 1243: 86: 81: 58: 1193:

which proposed to drop the "of England" from all of the English Edwards, which ended in no consensus. However, the closer explicitly stated

3120: 1235: 1103: 753: 198: 1129:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

3090: 2973: 2828: 1623:”… but we don’t, because for various reasons that would not be an appropriate encyclopedic article title that best serves our readers. 1467:. "Edward IV of England" is a superior title to "Edward IV" for the same basic reason that "Albert Einstein" is superior to "Einstein". 809: 2442:

says in regards to disambiguation. "There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does

3140: 2556: 2390: 1949: 1718: 1637: 1564: 1275: 1216: 1011:

if these finds are so common, then why did it take a concerted effort in multiple countries and years of research to find two of them?

337: 202: 1800:

Context tells you who he is within a website that deals only with his family. Walrasiad is clearly talking about the general reader.

3155: 1697:. How is this situation an exception to the general rule, which is we should drop the country when no disambiguation is needed? See 677: 647: 433: 394: 1686:

Recognizability does not say the article has to be recognizable as a royal figure. Recognizability says it must be recognizable to

856:

Note that parts of this had been added to the Knowledge article by an IP user in November 2023. The edit was poorly formatted (but

193:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 503:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

2103: 1299: 1279: 1259: 1239: 805: 559: 541: 2177:

us to make our priority) and which is more encyclopedic (to judge from the geographical clarifier that Britannica includes with

189: 143: 813: 2287: 904: 2325:

mean, exactly? To clarify my comment about Britannica Library: if you look at the link I provided - did you notice the word

2253:

directives, including the mandates of policy to prioritize the interests of our readers, fit an encyclopedic register, etc.

1398:. The 1st is indeed completely unambiguous and the 2nd only has a play named after the king so is effectively unambiguous. 2926:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2062: 1916: 1871: 1195:

a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue.

409: 388: 328: 289: 3165: 1017:

I'm all about being careful with new evidence, but so far all I've seen was subtle or not-so-subtle ragging on Langley.

33: 2168:, we favor using similar patterns for similar topics “to the extent that this is practical.” Given that we’re already 825: 789:

This article is due for a substantial overall based on Langley's authoritative report on The Missing Princes Project.

625: 1710: 1693:

As for the fact that nobody will recognize him as a royal figure, one, that is completely contrary to the advice at

2842: 1318:, logical, concise, common name and, on top of all that, their shortened titles already redirect to the two pages. 1854: 1463:

have been steadily and consistently opposed across scores of RMs. They do not have actual community consensus and

2798: 2754: 2501: 1656: 1604: 1596: 1379: 1120: 604: 3039:

In the section entitled Epitaph, the transcription of the original Latin is incorrect in several particulars.

2992: 2381:

We already clarify the country he reigned over: it is literally the first thing after his name in the article,

2169: 2149: 2121: 1850: 1190: 772: 748:

references to the historical consensus from other encyclopaedias) along with a critique of Baldwin's BBC post.

523: 227: 2282: 757: 3057: 2977: 2539:

does not apply to disambiguation, but even if it did I could just as easily say we should be consistent with

2125: 1690:. If you are casually familiar with British royalty, you will recognize "Edward V" as a British royal figure. 3018: 2946: 2824: 1407: 1064: 1022: 991: 794: 592: 2649:

is unhelpful for all sovereigns, you should seek to change the guideline rather than !voting to ignore it.

681: 651: 2794: 2750: 2663:

There is no "rule", only a guideline. If you see Edward V as an exception, what do you think Edward I is?

2563: 2497: 2397: 2091: 1956: 1941: 1906: 1725: 1667:. Whereas "Joe Biden" without "United States" yields tons of hits. This proposal is entirely contrary to 1644: 1600: 1571: 1447: 1375: 1223: 775:

which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —

3053: 2890: 2596: 2584: 1754:

search results. A simple google search proves the proposed article title is UNRECOGNIZABLE. It violates

1599:

because he's not a monarch. He's also not the 46th president of the United States with the name Joseph.

1556: 1541:. This is unrecognizable. V is not a surname. No indication that this refers to an English monarch. 1156: 1130: 1060: 1018: 987: 790: 724: 702: 39: 2517:

distinguishing this one from. The “of country” is instead a clarifier that exists to help us best meet

2588: 2536: 2513: 2454: 2439: 2431: 2196: 2162: 1980: 1755: 1668: 1538: 1489: 1488:. Sure, there are a number of vocal opponents to this change, but (with the exception of a couple of 1323: 1176: 930: 1211:

Given that there are no other Edward IVs/Edward Vs, it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed.

661:

If you were compiling a bibliography of sources on the subject of Edward V, what would you include?

21: 2988: 2904: 2746: 2682: 2646: 2617: 2245:” is not disambiguation.) Very simply, I see retaining the country as the form that best meets our 2222: 2145: 2117: 1846: 1770: 1676: 1586: 1546: 1510: 1485: 1460: 1204: 1167: 1143: 2908: 1133:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

441:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

336:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2870: 2818: 2723: 2690: 2654: 2632: 2599:

regarding the whole concept of moving to shorter titles that was agreed at RFC in the autumn. —

2518: 2407: 2338: 2271: 2246: 2204: 2165: 2025: 1992: 1791: 1698: 1525: 1497: 1426: 1400: 1396: 976: 939: 893: 871: 847: 610: 425: 2263: 2912: 2850: 2785: 2604: 2580: 2553: 2462: 2458: 2450: 2387: 2242: 1946: 1902: 1889: 1715: 1706: 1634: 1620: 1561: 1443: 1213: 1705:

it. But more importantly, we don't have that requirement for non-royal bios. Do you know who

646:

Unfortunately, Rushton2010 has reverted my attempts to make a start on this. Any suggestions?

2883: 2776: 2714: 2678: 2641: 2624: 2526: 2474: 2411: 2349: 2305: 2254: 2186: 1702: 1624: 821: 720: 698: 606: 575: 181: 2406:

That's fine, but explanations in the lede or the infobox don't exempt us from our explicit

2489: 2481: 2250: 2087: 1984: 1867: 1694: 1472: 1319: 820:, which gives more images of the other documents. I would imagine it is also discussed in 738: 438: 419: 1780:

o one - absolutely no one - refers to Edward V without specifying he is "King of England"

2466: 2313:

I'm afraid your response is a little too cryptic for me. Could you help me with that?

1766: 1672: 1582: 1542: 1439: 908: 666: 320: 3069: 2866: 2719: 2704: 2686: 2668: 2650: 2628: 2334: 2267: 2200: 2116:

You're not comparing Henry VIII and Elizabeth I to the eleven-week boy king? Really?

2021: 2020:

remains that there is close to zero risk of confusion between the king and the earl.

2010: 1988: 1970: 1931: 1805: 1787: 1521: 1493: 1464: 1422: 1342: 1041: 972: 958: 935: 916: 889: 867: 843: 776: 2846: 2772: 2600: 2522: 2485: 2321:

It's a British and Irish History: Biography; well, yes, but so what? And what does

2174: 1885: 304: 283: 817: 2548: 2470: 2300: 2178: 2099: 1842: 1619:”, which is very recognizable, entirely unambiguous, and far more concise than “ 1394: 1359: 1209:

Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed.

165: 137: 2544: 2095: 2042: 1688:

someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area

1468: 1371: 1355: 415: 310: 171: 2540: 2493: 1782:. That's a pretty strong claim, and one that is easily disproved. How about 1367: 1352: 1180: 662: 251: 2317:- of course I did otherwise how else could I have come up with the list? 812:

was alive in 1493. The two documents are described in some more detail at

2700: 2664: 2461:, etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of 2136: 2006: 1966: 1927: 1801: 1438:

I continue to support pre-emptive disambiguation. Also, this looks like

1363: 1338: 1171: 1037: 968: 954: 926: 912: 882: 816:, under paragraphs "Discovery 3" and "Discovery 4", respectively, and on 555: 537: 519: 2713:

Removing the clarifier makes the reading experience worse. As stated by

2262:

Britannica Library, ie the version of the encyclopedia for 'grown ups',

2144:

marked as such. The general article titling policy can be used instead.

2049:

suggest that you only read the thread title, form an opinion, and opine

333: 2140: 2040:

Unfortunately there appears to be a zero-chance of you understanding

1926:

This is just an illustration of the bias behind proposals like this.

2699:...which is merely a convention, not a policy nor even a guideline. 2616:

As others (Srnec, Celia Homeford, et al.) have explained above, the

863:

rather than being improved upon, followed by protection for one year

608: 2298:

will necessarily be about Britain. (Also, I’m reasonably sure that

2199:

itself tells us that consistency does not apply to disambiguators.

1513:- "most common, unambiguous name". Has brevity and conformity with 1442:, far from obvious to non-English readers where they were king of. 201:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2453:

exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance,

1838: 2718:

that here. My vote was about the two cases that are in question.

2591:

would be the shorter version and these kings are rarely known as

1985:

a little-known 20th century English member of the House of Lords

1783: 3061: 2996: 2981: 2916: 2896: 2874: 2854: 2833: 2802: 2779: 2758: 2727: 2708: 2694: 2672: 2658: 2636: 2608: 2567: 2529: 2505: 2414: 2401: 2352: 2342: 2308: 2275: 2257: 2208: 2189: 2153: 2111: 2067: 2029: 2014: 1996: 1974: 1960: 1935: 1921: 1910: 1893: 1876: 1809: 1795: 1774: 1729: 1680: 1648: 1627: 1608: 1590: 1575: 1550: 1529: 1501: 1476: 1451: 1430: 1413: 1383: 1346: 1327: 1307: 1287: 1267: 1247: 1227: 1160: 1068: 1045: 1026: 995: 980: 962: 943: 920: 897: 875: 851: 798: 779: 761: 728: 706: 685: 670: 655: 73: 52: 3006: 2934: 2767: 2480:

Spelling that differs between different varieties of English.

2238: 2182: 1616: 1088: 611: 569: 492: 15: 2264:

https://library.eb.co.uk/levels/adult/article/Edward-V/32030

2045:, as it has already been explained above. Either that or it 1884:- Didn't we just have an RM on these bios, mere months ago? 1750:

specifying he is "King of England". That doesn't show up in

250: 226: 1845:, and its meaning is clearly primary: do we move that too? 2784:

Titling the article on Lyndon B. Johnson "LBJ" violates

2410:

to seek the title that best serves our general readers.

2623:

convention isn't helpful in these cases, and should be

2438:

apply to disambiguation like "of England" Here is what

2226: 864: 861: 551: 533: 515: 1555:

We don't do that for non-monarch bios. We don't say

1106:

on 23 April 2024. The result of the move review was

437:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 332:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2775:as well as the current one, NCROY notwithstanding. 2882:this is one of those cases where less isn't more. 1559:because someone might be unsure who Joe Biden is. 752:a documentary and a book explaining the findings. 713:Cousins' War, Edward is played by Ashley Charles." 2195:short descriptions, not article titles. Lastly, 1765:be held to ensure it gets wider participation. 2677:My understanding is that the "rules" to which 949:and will just repeat whatever Channel 4 said. 619:This page has archives. Sections older than 8: 785:The Princes in the Tower by Philippa Langley 3116:Mid-importance biography (royalty) articles 3101:Mid-importance biography (peerage) articles 3003:Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024 2865:per endlessly rehashed debates elsewhere. 2579:- yes, these are clear primary topics, and 2449:Disambiguation. For instance, just because 2057:in a collective-decision making community, 934:of the "impartial sources" you talk about. 3106:Peerage and Baronetage work group articles 2931:Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024 1866:? Unhelpful to the WP:READER, to whom our 1595:Comparing apples to oranges. We don't him 1119:The following is a closed discussion of a 771:There is a move discussion in progress on 383: 278: 132: 47: 2521:and the other policy directives given in 1362:. It is also totally unambiguous, unlike 3136:High-importance England-related articles 2290:does the very same. And articles in the 2094:, and similar to later monarchs such as 1663:"king" or "England" and you end up with 3081:Top-importance English royalty articles 1519:Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 719:Thanks again though its appreciated. -- 385: 280: 134: 49: 19: 1779: 1687: 1351:The proposed title is consistent with 1298:has been notified of this discussion. 1278:has been notified of this discussion. 1258:has been notified of this discussion. 1238:has been notified of this discussion. 1208: 1194: 629:when more than 5 sections are present. 1741:I am an expert, and yet I would have 1655:It's not about location. It's about 95:Knowledge:WikiProject English Royalty 7: 3151:High-importance Middle Ages articles 3111:C-Class biography (royalty) articles 3096:C-Class biography (peerage) articles 3086:WikiProject English Royalty articles 1138:The result of the move request was: 431:This article is within the scope of 326:This article is within the scope of 187:This article is within the scope of 98:Template:WikiProject English Royalty 79:This article is within the scope of 2841:I've requested closure for this at 1031:I meant, as others recognise, that 38:It is of interest to the following 2161:per Celia Homeford et al. Per our 2053:reading the discussion. A curious 638:Lack of quality scholarly material 238:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage 85:. For more information, visit the 14: 3161:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages 2587:in this instance, given that the 2469:does not mean we have to retitle 623:may be automatically archived by 451:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle Ages 3131:C-Class England-related articles 3076:C-Class English royalty articles 3010: 2938: 2922:The discussion above is closed. 1665:everything else except this guy. 1337:- Inconsistent and unnecessary. 1092: 866:to prevent further "vandalism". 806:this National Geographic article 574: 496: 454:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages 418: 408: 387: 313: 303: 282: 262:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility 174: 164: 136: 72: 51: 20: 2816:per points already made above. 2280:Did you look at those entries? 1104:listed at Knowledge:Move review 1085:Requested move 29 February 2024 1054:I'm not saying that Philippa's 860:unsourced), and it was reverted 471:This article has been rated as 366:This article has been rated as 211:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 115:This article has been rated as 3126:WikiProject Biography articles 2315:Did you look at these entries? 2233:and doesn't serve our readers. 2225:: no, they’re not comparable, 1711:Philip A. Traynor (politician) 214:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2749:. Totally unambiguous names. 1431:23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 1414:17:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 1347:16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 1328:15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 1228:15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 1046:16:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 1027:04:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC) 996:19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) 981:18:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 963:16:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 944:15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 921:09:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 898:07:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 876:06:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 852:07:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 729:15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 707:15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 686:14:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 671:09:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 656:17:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC) 445:and see a list of open tasks. 346:Knowledge:WikiProject England 340:and see a list of open tasks. 259:This article is supported by 235:This article is supported by 3146:C-Class Middle Ages articles 799:21:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) 780:17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC) 762:04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC) 349:Template:WikiProject England 199:contribute to the discussion 3121:Royalty work group articles 3033:to reactivate your request. 3021:has been answered. Set the 2961:to reactivate your request. 2949:has been answered. Set the 1597:Joseph of the United States 1421:Confusing. Edward of what? 1256:WikiProject English Royalty 767:Move discussion in progress 82:WikiProject English Royalty 3182: 3091:C-Class biography articles 2875:02:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 2855:21:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) 2843:Knowledge:Closure requests 2834:21:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 2803:14:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) 2780:17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 2759:12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 2568:19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 2530:12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) 2506:12:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) 2415:20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) 2402:19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 2348:detriment to our readers. 1810:20:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 1796:07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) 1775:23:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) 1730:19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 1681:19:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) 1649:19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 1628:12:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) 1609:12:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 1384:13:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC) 1161:01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) 1051:was thrown into the river. 831:provides extensive detail. 826:Folger Shakespeare Library 477:project's importance scale 372:project's importance scale 121:project's importance scale 3141:WikiProject England pages 3062:18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 2917:16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) 2897:02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 2728:10:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 2709:16:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 2695:15:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 2673:15:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 2659:15:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 2637:14:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 2609:12:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 2488:peaceably coexist, as do 2353:18:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC) 2343:15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 2309:19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2276:14:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC) 2258:19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2209:14:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2190:14:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2154:08:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2126:22:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 2112:19:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 2068:12:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2030:09:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2015:09:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 1997:07:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 1975:09:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1961:03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1936:15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 1922:14:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 1911:13:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 1894:16:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1877:16:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1855:15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1591:04:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1576:03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1551:15:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1530:12:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1502:08:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1477:03:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1452:01:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1308:20:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1288:20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1268:19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1248:19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1197:This is that discussion. 1069:15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 550:, 29 February 2024, from 514:, 3 September 2021, from 470: 403: 365: 298: 258: 234: 159: 114: 67: 46: 3156:C-Class history articles 2997:07:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 2982:03:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 2924:Please do not modify it. 2323:making the context clear 1784:the royal family website 1459:. The recent changes to 1126:Please do not modify it. 773:Talk:Edward I of England 532:, 5 November 2023, from 352:England-related articles 101:English royalty articles 1862:Edward the fifth what? 1296:WikiProject Middle Ages 434:WikiProject Middle Ages 2241:reference. (The form “ 1870:should be directed. 1701:for why we can't just 626:Lowercase sigmabot III 255: 231: 149:Peerage and Baronetage 28:This article is rated 2179:its own article title 2170:retaining the country 1557:Joe Biden (president) 1236:WikiProject Biography 1007:considered impartial. 814:thehistorypress.co.uk 254: 230: 190:WikiProject Biography 2455:Azerbaijan (country) 2292:Oxford Companion to 1981:Princes in the Tower 1177:Edward IV of England 931:Princes in the Tower 457:Middle Ages articles 153:Royalty and Nobility 3166:Closed move reviews 2987:Edward V is meant. 2788:, as stated there " 1276:WikiProject England 1168:Edward V of England 552:Edward V of England 534:Edward V of England 516:Edward V of England 329:WikiProject England 2583:clearly overrides 2408:policy obligations 2223:short descriptions 1737:Oh, I am familiar 1657:WP:RECOGNIZABILITY 426:Middle Ages portal 256: 232: 217:biography articles 34:content assessment 3037: 3036: 2965: 2964: 2893: 2887: 2857: 2773:meet requirements 2459:Armenia (country) 2451:Georgia (country) 2243:Lyndon B. Johnson 2227:as covered before 1864:Earl of Liverpool 1707:Philip A. Traynor 1621:Lyndon B. Johnson 1465:should be ignored 1310: 1290: 1270: 1250: 1153: 1150:non-admin closure 1114: 1113: 818:Langley's website 714: 633: 632: 598: 597: 568: 567: 491: 490: 487: 486: 483: 482: 382: 381: 378: 377: 277: 276: 273: 272: 131: 130: 127: 126: 3173: 3028: 3024: 3014: 3013: 3007: 2956: 2952: 2942: 2941: 2935: 2891: 2885: 2840: 2821: 2559: 2475:Guadalajara City 2393: 2385:in the infobox. 2288:Encyclopedia.com 2175:policy instructs 2065: 1952: 1919: 1874: 1721: 1640: 1567: 1410: 1403: 1293: 1273: 1253: 1233: 1219: 1159: 1157:Compassionate727 1147: 1128: 1096: 1095: 1089: 886: 822:Philippa Langley 711: 628: 612: 589: 588: 578: 570: 500: 499: 493: 459: 458: 455: 452: 449: 428: 423: 422: 412: 405: 404: 399: 391: 384: 354: 353: 350: 347: 344: 323: 318: 317: 316: 307: 300: 299: 294: 286: 279: 219: 218: 215: 212: 209: 195:join the project 184: 182:Biography portal 179: 178: 177: 168: 161: 160: 155: 140: 133: 103: 102: 99: 96: 93: 76: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3066: 3065: 3026: 3022: 3011: 3005: 2954: 2950: 2939: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2819: 2795:UmbrellaTheLeef 2751:UmbrellaTheLeef 2557: 2498:UmbrellaTheLeef 2490:motorcycle tyre 2482:Orange (colour) 2391: 2092:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 2063: 1950: 1942:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 1917: 1872: 1868:Prime directive 1719: 1638: 1601:UmbrellaTheLeef 1565: 1408: 1401: 1376:UmbrellaTheLeef 1217: 1154: 1124: 1100:This discussion 1093: 1087: 880: 787: 769: 640: 624: 613: 607: 583: 497: 473:High-importance 456: 453: 450: 447: 446: 439:the Middle Ages 424: 417: 398:High‑importance 397: 368:High-importance 351: 348: 345: 342: 341: 319: 314: 312: 293:High‑importance 292: 216: 213: 210: 207: 206: 180: 175: 173: 146: 100: 97: 94: 92:English Royalty 91: 90: 61: 59:English Royalty 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 3179: 3177: 3169: 3168: 3163: 3158: 3153: 3148: 3143: 3138: 3133: 3128: 3123: 3118: 3113: 3108: 3103: 3098: 3093: 3088: 3083: 3078: 3068: 3067: 3035: 3034: 3015: 3004: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2989:Celia Homeford 2963: 2962: 2943: 2932: 2929: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2899: 2877: 2859: 2858: 2837: 2836: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2762: 2761: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2611: 2597:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2585:WP:CONSISTENCY 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2512:Umbrella: No, 2509: 2508: 2478: 2467:Chihuahua City 2463:Querétaro City 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2384: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2260: 2234: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2156: 2146:Celia Homeford 2130: 2129: 2128: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 1924: 1896: 1879: 1857: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1762: 1759: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1532: 1504: 1490:WP:TRAINWRECKs 1479: 1454: 1433: 1416: 1393:per Britannica 1388: 1387: 1386: 1331: 1330: 1312: 1311: 1291: 1271: 1251: 1184: 1183: 1174: 1164: 1136: 1135: 1121:requested move 1115: 1112: 1111: 1097: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1052: 1015: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 909:Knowledge:NPOV 854: 839: 786: 783: 768: 765: 754:69.112.240.139 745: 744: 743: 742: 718: 696: 693: 691: 690: 689: 688: 639: 636: 631: 630: 618: 615: 614: 609: 605: 603: 600: 599: 596: 595: 585: 584: 579: 573: 566: 565: 564: 563: 545: 527: 501: 489: 488: 485: 484: 481: 480: 469: 463: 462: 460: 443:the discussion 430: 429: 413: 401: 400: 392: 380: 379: 376: 375: 364: 358: 357: 355: 338:the discussion 325: 324: 321:England portal 308: 296: 295: 287: 275: 274: 271: 270: 267:Mid-importance 257: 247: 246: 243:Mid-importance 233: 223: 222: 220: 186: 185: 169: 157: 156: 141: 129: 128: 125: 124: 117:Top-importance 113: 107: 106: 104: 77: 65: 64: 62:Top‑importance 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3178: 3167: 3164: 3162: 3159: 3157: 3154: 3152: 3149: 3147: 3144: 3142: 3139: 3137: 3134: 3132: 3129: 3127: 3124: 3122: 3119: 3117: 3114: 3112: 3109: 3107: 3104: 3102: 3099: 3097: 3094: 3092: 3089: 3087: 3084: 3082: 3079: 3077: 3074: 3073: 3071: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3054:Josephcasazza 3049: 3046: 3043: 3040: 3032: 3029:parameter to 3020: 3016: 3009: 3008: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2974:72.42.165.190 2969: 2960: 2957:parameter to 2948: 2944: 2937: 2936: 2930: 2925: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2903: 2900: 2898: 2894: 2888: 2881: 2878: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2832: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2820:Robertus Pius 2815: 2812: 2811: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2619: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589:WP:COMMONNAME 2586: 2582: 2578: 2575: 2574: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2555: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537:WP:CONSISTENT 2535: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2515: 2514:WP:CONSISTENT 2511: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2445: 2441: 2440:WP:CONSISTENT 2437: 2434:specifically 2433: 2432:WP:CONSISTENT 2430: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2389: 2382: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2354: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2297: 2295: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2259: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2197:WP:CONSISTENT 2193: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118:Tim O'Doherty 2115: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2082: 2081: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2044: 2039: 2038: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1948: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1923: 1920: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1897: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1875: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1858: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847:Tim O'Doherty 1844: 1841:redirects to 1840: 1836: 1833: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1756:WP:COMMONNAME 1753: 1749: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1717: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1691: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1669:WP:COMMONNAME 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1636: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1563: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1539:WP:COMMONNAME 1536: 1533: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1455: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440:systemic bias 1437: 1434: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1417: 1415: 1411: 1405: 1404: 1402:Crouch, Swale 1397: 1395: 1392: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1292: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1252: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1182: 1178: 1175: 1173: 1169: 1166: 1165: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1151: 1145: 1141: 1134: 1132: 1127: 1122: 1117: 1116: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1091: 1090: 1084: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061:Indiana Johns 1057: 1053: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1034: 1033:The Spectator 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1019:Indiana Johns 1016: 1013: 1009: 1005: 997: 993: 989: 988:Indiana Johns 984: 983: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 952: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 932: 928: 924: 923: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 884: 879: 878: 877: 873: 869: 865: 862: 859: 855: 853: 849: 845: 840: 837: 832: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 804:Also compare 803: 802: 801: 800: 796: 792: 791:PlaysInPeoria 784: 782: 781: 778: 774: 766: 764: 763: 759: 755: 749: 740: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 726: 722: 715: 709: 708: 704: 700: 687: 683: 679: 674: 673: 672: 668: 664: 660: 659: 658: 657: 653: 649: 644: 637: 635: 627: 622: 617: 616: 602: 601: 594: 591: 590: 587: 586: 582: 577: 572: 571: 561: 557: 553: 549: 546: 543: 539: 535: 531: 528: 525: 521: 517: 513: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506:Discussions: 502: 495: 494: 478: 474: 468: 465: 464: 461: 444: 440: 436: 435: 427: 421: 416: 414: 411: 407: 406: 402: 396: 393: 390: 386: 373: 369: 363: 360: 359: 356: 339: 335: 331: 330: 322: 311: 309: 306: 302: 301: 297: 291: 288: 285: 281: 268: 265:(assessed as 264: 263: 253: 249: 248: 244: 241:(assessed as 240: 239: 229: 225: 224: 221: 204: 203:documentation 200: 196: 192: 191: 183: 172: 170: 167: 163: 162: 158: 154: 150: 145: 142: 139: 135: 122: 118: 112: 109: 108: 105: 88: 84: 83: 78: 75: 71: 70: 66: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 3050: 3047: 3044: 3041: 3038: 3030: 3019:edit request 2970: 2966: 2958: 2947:edit request 2923: 2905:WP:SOVEREIGN 2901: 2879: 2862: 2817: 2813: 2789: 2747:WP:SOVEREIGN 2742: 2683:WP:SOVEREIGN 2647:WP:SOVEREIGN 2620: 2618:WP:SOVEREIGN 2613: 2592: 2576: 2552: 2486:Lime (color) 2443: 2435: 2386: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2299: 2293: 2291: 2281: 2230: 2158: 2132: 2083: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2041: 2002: 1945: 1903:Killuminator 1898: 1881: 1859: 1834: 1751: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1714: 1692: 1685: 1660: 1633: 1560: 1534: 1518: 1514: 1511:WP:SOVEREIGN 1506: 1486:WP:SOVEREIGN 1481: 1461:WP:SOVEREIGN 1456: 1444:PatGallacher 1435: 1418: 1399: 1390: 1334: 1315: 1212: 1205:WP:SOVEREIGN 1200: 1199: 1189:: There was 1186: 1185: 1144:WP:SOVEREIGN 1139: 1137: 1125: 1118: 1107: 1099: 1055: 1032: 857: 835: 829: 788: 770: 750: 746: 716: 710: 692: 645: 641: 634: 620: 580: 547: 530:No consensus 529: 512:No consensus 511: 505: 504: 472: 432: 367: 327: 260: 236: 188: 116: 87:project page 80: 40:WikiProjects 2715:Huwmanbeing 2549:Edward VIII 2519:WP:CRITERIA 2471:Guadalajara 2247:WP:CRITERIA 2163:consistency 2100:Elizabeth I 1944:is "bias"? 1843:Rishi Sunak 1837:per Srnec. 1786:, for one? 1709:was? Would 1699:WP:LOCALCON 1360:Edward VIII 1191:a recent RM 1131:move review 721:Rushton2010 699:Rushton2010 678:31.54.9.127 648:31.54.9.127 448:Middle Ages 395:Middle Ages 3070:Categories 3023:|answered= 2951:|answered= 2886:EPRICAVARK 2786:WP:CONCISE 2625:WP:IGNOREd 2593:of England 2581:WP:CONCISE 2566:· he/him) 2545:Edward VII 2400:· he/him) 2331:of country 2301:Britannica 2249:and other 2231:Britannica 2096:Henry VIII 2001:But there 1959:· he/him) 1728:· he/him) 1647:· he/him) 1574:· he/him) 1515:Brittanica 1372:Edward III 1356:Edward VII 1320:Randy Kryn 1226:· he/him) 1187:Background 560:discussion 542:discussion 524:discussion 2907:is clear 2791:(people). 2679:WP:IGNORE 2642:WP:IGNORE 2541:Edward VI 2494:snow tire 2446:control: 2335:Bill Reid 2268:Bill Reid 2166:criterion 2043:hyperbole 1767:Walrasiad 1703:WP:IGNORE 1673:Walrasiad 1583:Walrasiad 1543:Walrasiad 1522:Bill Reid 1368:Edward II 1353:Edward VI 1201:Rationale 1181:Edward IV 593:Archive 1 208:Biography 144:Biography 2867:SnowFire 2829:Contribs 2720:Renerpho 2687:Rosbif73 2651:Rosbif73 2629:Renerpho 2436:does not 2283:Columbia 2251:WP:TITLE 2201:Rosbif73 2137:Einstein 2088:WP:NCROY 2064:——Serial 2022:Rosbif73 1989:Rosbif73 1940:Being a 1918:——Serial 1873:——Serial 1788:Rosbif73 1695:WP:NCROY 1494:Rosbif73 1423:Dimadick 1364:Edward I 1172:Edward V 1108:endorsed 973:Renerpho 969:Syphilis 936:Renerpho 890:Renerpho 868:Renerpho 844:Renerpho 777:RMCD bot 739:WP:TRUTH 621:365 days 581:Archives 556:Edward V 538:Edward V 520:Edward V 2909:DuxLoKi 2902:Support 2847:Natg 19 2743:Support 2601:Amakuru 2577:Support 2558:Blaster 2392:Blaster 2296:History 2294:British 2104:Векочел 2102:, etc. 2084:Support 2051:without 1983:) with 1951:Blaster 1899:Support 1886:GoodDay 1748:without 1743:no idea 1720:Blaster 1661:without 1639:Blaster 1566:Blaster 1507:Support 1482:Support 1391:Support 1316:Support 1300:Векочел 1280:Векочел 1260:Векочел 1240:Векочел 1218:Blaster 925:Thanks 810:Richard 475:on the 370:on the 343:England 334:England 290:England 119:on the 30:C-class 2880:Oppose 2863:Oppose 2814:Oppose 2621:policy 2614:Oppose 2547:, and 2159:Oppose 2141:Hitler 2133:Oppose 1882:Oppose 1860:Oppose 1835:Oppose 1535:Oppose 1509:— per 1457:Oppose 1436:Oppose 1419:Oppose 1335:Oppose 1294:Note: 1274:Note: 1254:Note: 1234:Note: 1203:: per 1056:theory 558:, see 540:, see 522:, see 36:scale. 3027:|ans= 3017:This 2955:|ans= 2945:This 2554:House 2523:WP:AT 2388:House 2327:adult 2055:modus 1947:House 1839:Sunak 1716:House 1635:House 1562:House 1469:Srnec 1214:House 1140:moved 548:Moved 3058:talk 2993:talk 2978:talk 2913:talk 2892:talk 2871:talk 2851:talk 2825:Talk 2799:talk 2777:╠╣uw 2755:talk 2745:per 2724:talk 2705:talk 2691:talk 2669:talk 2655:talk 2633:talk 2605:talk 2564:talk 2527:╠╣uw 2502:talk 2492:and 2484:and 2465:and 2412:╠╣uw 2398:talk 2350:╠╣uw 2339:talk 2306:╠╣uw 2272:talk 2255:╠╣uw 2205:talk 2187:╠╣uw 2150:talk 2122:talk 2108:talk 2086:per 2059:hein 2047:does 2026:talk 2011:talk 1993:talk 1971:talk 1957:talk 1932:talk 1907:talk 1890:talk 1851:talk 1806:talk 1792:talk 1771:talk 1726:talk 1677:talk 1645:talk 1625:╠╣uw 1605:talk 1587:talk 1572:talk 1547:talk 1537:per 1526:talk 1517:and 1498:talk 1484:per 1473:talk 1448:talk 1427:talk 1409:talk 1380:talk 1370:and 1358:and 1343:talk 1324:talk 1304:talk 1284:talk 1264:talk 1244:talk 1224:talk 1142:per 1102:was 1065:talk 1042:talk 1023:talk 992:talk 977:talk 959:talk 951:This 940:talk 917:talk 905:this 894:talk 872:talk 848:talk 795:talk 758:talk 725:talk 703:talk 682:talk 667:talk 663:Nev1 652:talk 467:High 362:High 197:and 3025:or 2953:or 2768:LBJ 2701:Deb 2665:Deb 2496:." 2473:to 2444:not 2383:and 2337:| ( 2270:| ( 2239:LBJ 2221:Re 2185:). 2183:LBJ 2139:or 2061:? 2007:Deb 1967:Deb 1928:Deb 1802:Deb 1752:any 1739:and 1671:. 1617:LBJ 1524:| ( 1412:) 1339:Deb 1038:Deb 955:Deb 927:Deb 913:Deb 883:Deb 858:not 554:to 536:to 518:to 111:Top 3072:: 3060:) 3031:no 2995:) 2980:) 2959:no 2915:) 2895:) 2873:) 2853:) 2845:. 2827:• 2801:) 2793:" 2757:) 2726:) 2707:) 2693:) 2685:. 2671:) 2657:) 2635:) 2627:. 2607:) 2551:. 2543:, 2504:) 2457:, 2341:) 2274:) 2207:) 2152:) 2124:) 2110:) 2098:, 2090:, 2028:) 2013:) 2003:is 1995:) 1973:) 1934:) 1909:) 1892:) 1853:) 1808:) 1794:) 1773:) 1679:) 1607:) 1589:) 1549:) 1528:) 1500:) 1475:) 1450:) 1429:) 1382:) 1374:. 1366:, 1345:) 1326:) 1306:) 1286:) 1266:) 1246:) 1207:, 1179:→ 1170:→ 1146:. 1123:. 1067:) 1044:) 1025:) 994:) 979:) 961:) 942:) 919:) 911:. 896:) 874:) 850:) 797:) 760:) 727:) 705:) 684:) 669:) 654:) 269:). 245:). 151:/ 147:: 3056:( 2991:( 2976:( 2911:( 2889:( 2884:L 2869:( 2849:( 2831:) 2823:( 2797:( 2753:( 2722:( 2703:( 2689:( 2667:( 2653:( 2631:( 2603:( 2562:( 2500:( 2477:. 2396:( 2203:( 2148:( 2120:( 2106:( 2024:( 2009:( 1991:( 1969:( 1955:( 1930:( 1905:( 1888:( 1849:( 1804:( 1790:( 1769:( 1758:. 1724:( 1675:( 1643:( 1603:( 1585:( 1570:( 1545:( 1496:( 1471:( 1446:( 1425:( 1406:( 1378:( 1341:( 1322:( 1302:( 1282:( 1262:( 1242:( 1222:( 1155:— 1152:) 1148:( 1110:. 1063:( 1040:( 1021:( 990:( 975:( 957:( 938:( 915:( 892:( 885:: 881:@ 870:( 846:( 838:. 793:( 756:( 723:( 701:( 680:( 665:( 650:( 562:. 544:. 526:. 479:. 374:. 205:. 123:. 89:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index