- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that this is an undesirable content fork created to bypass the full protection of the source article where inclusion of this content is contested. This dispute must be resolved by seeking consensus at the source article. Sandstein 12:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Criticism of the British Monarchy
- Criticism of the British Monarchy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a pov content fork of Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Evidently, this article was started in evasion of the full protect currently in place on that article. Safiel ( talk) 15:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is just a coat rack for pushing anti-monarchy views. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Although this article's POV may not be entirely neutral, criticism of the British monarchy is a real thing and is notable enough for encyclopedic content; the article appears to have sufficient sources. The article seems to be written in good faith, and improving the article would be more appropriate. Another option, perhaps, would be to merge to British Monarchy. Tal Brenev ( talk) 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This appears to be a textbook WP:POVFORK. Review of the original article's talk page shows this article arose after there was a failure to create a consensus for the addition of this information. EricSerge ( talk) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The section on the original article's
talk page was created to balance its POV, as the article appeared too biased towards the British Monarchy. To create a
neutral point of view, at least a few criticisms should either be added to the main article, or this article should be kept. Concerning
WP:POVFORK, I again recommend merging to
British Monarchy.
Tal Brenev (
talk) 21:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The section on the talk page was not created to balance the article's POV since the article is not bias. The talk page section was created in an attempt to skew the article.
DrKiernan (
talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- In what way was the section created to skew the article? Adding a "criticisms" section, which many articles have, by the way, would not skew the article, but show that there are other points of view in addition to what has already been written. Adding additional opinions to an article of that length does not immediately bias the article.
Tal Brenev (
talk) 22:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, why aren't you suggesting a "Praise" section which we fill with thousands upon thousands of laudatory messages praising the Queen? Sections of either description are inherently bias. Show me a sentence in the article that is bias towards the monarchy.
DrKiernan (
talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the article should contain two separate sections for praise and criticisms. Certain articles have a criticism section which contain both negative criticisms and counter-criticisms/counter-arguments, so as not to give undue weight. Some sections only have negative criticisms because the rest of the article is enough to balance the POV. Consider the following sections of articles:
Christianity#Criticism_and_apologetics,
Pokemon#Criticism_and_controversy and
Scientology#Controversies. These sections do not "skew" the article, nor do they give undue weight to the article as a whole. The same would apply to this article: a small section about controversy on the British Monarchy doesn't affect the whole article.
Tal Brenev (
talk) 23:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- See
Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Modern status. This nominated article is split off from there. That is why it is a content fork. The section was skewed to remove the polling data and solely present criticism and then when that wasn't accepted, it was split off as this article.
DrKiernan (
talk) 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see what you mean by "skew" now. The editor removed content that supported the British Monarchy ("70–80% of the British public support the continuation of the monarchy") and added content against it. Why not fix the criticism part for formatting and copyediting, and then keep both it and the "Modern Status" section? Then it wouldn't be skewing since both views would be there. - Tal Brenev ( talk) 23:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- See
Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Modern status. This nominated article is split off from there. That is why it is a content fork. The section was skewed to remove the polling data and solely present criticism and then when that wasn't accepted, it was split off as this article.
DrKiernan (
talk) 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the article should contain two separate sections for praise and criticisms. Certain articles have a criticism section which contain both negative criticisms and counter-criticisms/counter-arguments, so as not to give undue weight. Some sections only have negative criticisms because the rest of the article is enough to balance the POV. Consider the following sections of articles:
Christianity#Criticism_and_apologetics,
Pokemon#Criticism_and_controversy and
Scientology#Controversies. These sections do not "skew" the article, nor do they give undue weight to the article as a whole. The same would apply to this article: a small section about controversy on the British Monarchy doesn't affect the whole article.
Tal Brenev (
talk) 23:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, why aren't you suggesting a "Praise" section which we fill with thousands upon thousands of laudatory messages praising the Queen? Sections of either description are inherently bias. Show me a sentence in the article that is bias towards the monarchy.
DrKiernan (
talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- In what way was the section created to skew the article? Adding a "criticisms" section, which many articles have, by the way, would not skew the article, but show that there are other points of view in addition to what has already been written. Adding additional opinions to an article of that length does not immediately bias the article.
Tal Brenev (
talk) 22:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The section on the talk page was not created to balance the article's POV since the article is not bias. The talk page section was created in an attempt to skew the article.
DrKiernan (
talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Update:
there are many other articles titled "Criticism of...", yet they are not deleted per WP:POVFORK.According to WP:POVFORK: 'There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).' Tal Brenev ( talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- The section on the original article's
talk page was created to balance its POV, as the article appeared too biased towards the British Monarchy. To create a
neutral point of view, at least a few criticisms should either be added to the main article, or this article should be kept. Concerning
WP:POVFORK, I again recommend merging to
British Monarchy.
Tal Brenev (
talk) 21:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Anything that's actually sourced to reliable sources can be merged into Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The edit warring on that article which led to the creation of this one shows clear POV pushing, since the original section which the editor in question removed was not biased either way. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.