Talk:Lord Mountbatten

"Lust for young men" article in The Times

I've added the link:

Tucker, Grant (18 August 2019). "Lord Mountbatten's 'lust for young men' revealed". The Times. Retrieved 18 August 2019.

Under further reading.

The above is just a book review. The book is THE MOUNTBATTENS: Their Lives and Loves by Andrew Lownie at http://www.themountbattens.com/ This is obviously going to be controversial and a long term discussion. I have no taste for either right now, but figure that the conversation should get started.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Slightly ahead of you here. It's already in reliable sources so I'd say it already belongs in the article. Happy to discuss, of course. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A slight disconnect between source and what we have in the article; Source says bisexual, article says homosexual, source says "young men", article says boys. Is there a source for "predatory"? This all seems to be in The Sun and Daily Mail articles, but I don't think they are considered reliable. (Hohum ^@) 13:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"She stated that Lord Louis Mountbatten was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys." "One of the lost letters had been sent to him by a man who claimed Mountbatten had tried to seduce him when he was 17." and "Tom said Mountbatten had something of a fetish for uniforms — handsome young men in military uniforms (with high boots) and beautiful boys in school uniform." were what I was thinking of. Suggest a reword? --The Huhsz (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC) added: I changed "boys" to "young men"; you're right, that is fairer. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This section of the article seems out of place in the "marriage" section. Perhaps a new section "Allegations of sexual offenses"? It's also somewhat rambling, and possibly of WP:UNDUE length given that it's all based on one source, the book by Lownie. (Hohum ^@) 00:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs both moving and pruning. Dormskirk (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of homosexuality and abuse of children were stored together here, which is inappropriate. Sexual abuse of children is not a sexuality. I've split the allegations of homosexuality from the claims of sexual abuse of children, each in their own subsections. I used "abuse" rather than "offenses" as suggested above as at the time homosexuality was a sexual offence. MatthewWilkes (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The FBI dossier is explicit in naming his preference as “boys”. Only Rupert Murdoch’s Times attempted to pass off Mountbatten’s paedophilia as merely "Lust for young men". --91.54.1.150 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

An FBI dossier can include all sorts of reports from witnesses and interviewees of varying reliability. Their presence in a file doesn't necessarily mean the FBI believes them. They will often to meet WP:RS.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual abuse

I am intrigued by the comment "These claims were dismissed[who?] at the time" which editors cite to Andrew Lownie's article in the times of 7 November 2017 and Chris Moore's book "The Kincora Scandal". Both these works seem to be promoting the allegations but neither of them seem to be dismissing them. This little sentence needs a better source. Dormskirk (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The allegations were rejected by Historical Institution Abuse Inquiry and I have added properly sourced information which I hope readers will find useful. Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This entire section in the article reads as being rather homophobic, honestly. Tabruns2021 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed I lack the ability to do it but there should be two headings: Sexuality and (Allegations of) Child sexual abuse. 51.6.121.6 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not resurrect old threads, start a new one if you must. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"His Excellency"

No evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office. FDW777 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I did add provide evidence with the following source from the offical website of the National Assembly of Pakistan:[1] But this was then removed with the comment that no evidence was given. Kinda circular reasoning, huh? Could you please explain why this source was removed or was not good enough? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon I agree with you, but what we can do about it? Wikipedia is not fair, nor does it try to be. Maybe you should report it to WP:ANI? But in the meantime relax. Stress is not your friend. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

My error, edit restored. Sciencefish (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, no evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office (my emphasis). FDW777 (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Also where is the evidence that a) Highest honorific prefixes and titles are included in Infobox, and b) "His excellency" (if correct in the first place) is highest? FDW777 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with FDW777, he wasn't 'His Excellency the Earl Mountbatten of Burma'. He was created Earl Mountbatten of Burma after leaving office. This construction takes a style from one period of his life and puts it together with a title from a different period of his life. It's like writing 'His Serene Highness the Viscount Mountbatten of Burma'. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns

I do not have access to the sources but there are some concerns to consider.

• Currently the 6th paragraph of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma#Last Viceroy of India section:

"When India and Pakistan attained independence at midnight of 14–15 August 1947, Mountbatten was alone in his study at the Viceroy's house saying to himself just before the clock struck midnight that for still a few minutes, he was the most powerful man on Earth."

He was alone in his study and was saying to himself. The only way this could be known is from his writing or notes so conveys some confusion and needs rewording as from the source or better sourcing.

• The 7th paragraph states:

"Accounts differ on the future which Mountbatten desired for Kashmir."

This begs a (accounts) tag.

• The same paragraph:

"Pakistani accounts suggest that Mountbatten favoured the accession of Kashmir to India, citing his close relationship to Nehru. Mountbatten's own account says that he simply wanted the maharaja, Hari Singh, to make up his mind."

Pakistani accounts and Mountbatton's own account use the same three pages from Schofield (2010), pp. 29–31, and it seems this could be narrowed to which page supports the content. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality subheading

@EEng: regarding this reversion: Having the subheading refer to the accusations does not gave credence to them. I changed it to "Sexuality and pedophilia accusations", not "Sexuality and pedophilia". Many Wikipedia articles on people who have been accused of sexual abuse in one form or another have subheadings that mention it. A subheading should let you know what is in the section. Just "Sexuality" certainly does not "cover it" given the section details his alleged homosexuality and his alleged pedophilia. It also suggests that allegedly being a pedophile is part of his sexuality. As it is, the section is homophobic. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Headings are supposed to succinctly (a) give an overview of the article and (b) guide the reader looking for something specific to the right section. While the alleged pedophilia may not be "part" of his sexuality, it's certainly related -- that's why they're in the same section. And someone who has, perhaps, heard of the pedophilia question will correctly suppose the a "Sexuality" section will address it. The one word performs both functions without calling out one particular aspect in particular, as if it's especially important. EEng 17:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly: the section is on alleged homosexuality and pedophilia, so an overview should mention both, and if the reader is specifically looking for the pedophilia accusations then a more specific subheading would be more appropriate. Mountbatten may only be alleged to have abused boys, but pedophilia is not related to homosexuality. (Also, people who have heard pedophilia rumours about him would not necessarily suppose a sexuality section would address it – I, for example, had heard he was an alleged pedophile but not that he was allegedly gay before I first read this article.) Using just the word "Sexuality" as the subheading appears to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia together. The section comes across as homophobic and the last part of your comment reads as if you don't think pedophilia accusations are important. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think putting the paedophilia allegations into the section heading gives them too much WP:WEIGHT. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. EEng 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. I think it's due and not including it buries it. Many articles with people accused but not convicted of similar include subheadings mentioning it, e.g. Edward Heath ("Allegations of child sexual abuse"), Peter Morrison ("Allegations of child abuse"). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not buried, it's there in the article for anyone to read. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And as for the Heath and Morrison articles, different articles have different needs. In both those cases, those are separate sections on only the sexual abuse allegations, so naturally those sections' headings will reflect that. EEng 22:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm gay myself so I suggest you give the homophobia bullshit a rest. EEng 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't dispute any point I made. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How about your claim that the Sexuality section is homophobic? I too am gay and I too wish you would give the homophobia bullshit a rest. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And we queens are just not in the mood given recent events. EEng 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse is not about sexuality. It is about violent crime. You wouldn’t put general rape allegations here; you would give them a prominent heading. Being attracted to another consenting adult is sexuality. Being attracted to children is a recognised illness. The two should be separated. 51.6.121.6 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not resurrect old threads, start a new one if you must

Request for comment

Should the title of the "Sexuality" section be renamed to include mention of the pedophilia accusations? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: I think it should be changed to something such as "Sexuality and pedophilia accusations". Other articles with similar allegations have it mentioned in the subheading, and I think that it just reading "Sexuality" when the section details his alleged homosexuality and pedophilia conflates the two together. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Homosexuality (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Pedophilia (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Including them both under "sexuality" doesn't conflate anything. EEng 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  The issue then is, some may see putting paedophillia in the sexuality section as validating it as part of the LGBTQ+. I support the Sexual Allegations proposal, as neither can be proven and it avoids the afforementioned issue. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• No for the reasons stated in the prior subsection. Plus opening an RfC because you're not getting your way about a section heading after 6 whole hours is a selfish waste of community time. EEng 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• No. In addition to the reasons already stated, headings should be as concise as possible, and I see no compelling reason to lengthen this one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, maybe to "Sexual allegations". His sexuality isn't black and white seeing as he was married with issue, and the allegations aren't 100% confirmed.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  So you propose that we report the subject's potential homosexuality under the heading of "Sexuality allegations"? Better watch out before someone labels you homophobic! EEng 18:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. And it's not that the rumors "aren't 100% confirmed" -- they're 0% confirmed. EEng 00:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. What do you propose that the title be changed to? Personally, I don't see how the sexuality of a person has bearing on any illegal/unusual propensities of that person. Historically, persons who practice Paedophilia and it's associated behaviours are spread over the whole 'spectrum' of sexuality and thus Paedophilia does not 'favour' one type of sexual inclination over the other. I don't see how your request could be fulfilled in any way. But, this is just my opinion in this regard BenBrownBoy BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 21:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• No - As the previous comments already make clear, such a change would serve little purpose other than muddying the waters and giving rise to further controversy among editors. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• No Doing so does not improve the article. Always be very cautious when dealing with any new content in a BLP pertaining to "accusations." Before wordsmithing a headline, it is imperative that we have vetted the sources as iron-clad AND that the new content bears weight for inclusion: MOS:BLP, MOS:UNDUE, MOS:RELIABLEKerdooskis (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• No: doing so would lend the accusations, which are hearsay at best and not under investigation or the subject of a civil case, an undue weight which they do not deserve. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• No Homosexuality (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Pedophilia (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Including them both under "sexuality" doesn't conflate anything per EEng and specifically this text conflates nothing and many allegations iro young boys appear to be particularly tenuous and hearsay.Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• No, as per all the above comments. If anything it should be changed to something like "Homosexuality", "Alleged Homosexuality", or "Homosexual Paedophilia". I could even get behind calling it pederasty, but I imagine others would not want to, as that term is not used there right now is it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

Proposal: Add at the beginning of the section headed “Legacy” the following:

Mountbatten’s legacy has remained largely positive amongst the general public, despite the numerous allegations of child sexual abuse made against him, including by his victims.

Explanation: Added content. The multiple and widespread allegations are referred to above under heading “Sexuality”. Should be repeated at top of legacy, as this is the most important aspect of his legacy from a public interest / historical perspective.

Request: I would welcome engagement here. I made the edit but it was removed and I was understandably pointed towards Talk. It is an important edit, so I invite comment first as requested by the deleter. 51.6.121.6 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You need at least one very high quality citation that supports the claim that his legacy is largely positive. I also don't think we should call his accusers "victims" as that would imply that the allegations are true, but they are not proven. I also take issue with this being the most important aspect of his legacy. The most important aspect of his legacy is the independence and partition of India. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Archiving again

I have archived threads up to the end of 2021, that is to say with no activity after that date. They are at Talk:Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma/Archive 2. DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Name

With no discussion, an IP changed the order of his name to put Albert first based on some supposed citation to Queen Victoria's letters or diary. Even if this is a legitimate citation, a reference to one primary source should not supersede the multitude of reference works which list his name the other way (the ODNB, Britannica, Cracroft's peerage, New York Times, etc.). Wikipedia's been spreading misinformation for over a year, this is frustrating. john k (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Lord Mountbatten. Although this discussion resulted in a clear consensus against the original proposal for Louis Mountbatten, the title "Lord Mountbatten" was also proposed in the discussion and attracted several arguments in its favor. It was argued that Lord Mountbatten is the figure's WP:COMMONNAME, as well as more WP:CONCISE. It was also argued that this figure was overwhelmingly the best known figure to hold the "Lord Mountbatten" title, thus making the standalone title preferable under WP:NCPEER. The principal opposition to "Lord Mountbatten" came on the grounds of WP:CONSISTENT: specifically, it was argued that the article title should be consistent with other holders of the "Earl Mountbatten" title, or with other British peers more broadly. Though this argument is a sound one, the arguments in favor of "Lord Mountbatten" were grounded in a wider range of policy, leading me to find a consensus to adopt Lord Mountbatten. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma → Louis Mountbatten – Move to match policy. WP:COMMONNAME is most certainly not the tortuous and tautological "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma". WP:NCBRITPEER states [use the title except] for 1) Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell")., and also 2) When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron. Lord Louis Mountbatten would also be an acceptable title. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think Louis Mountbatten is the common name. If we do want to go down that route then just Mountbatten would be where we end up. Lord Louis Mountbatten would be fine if we were editing before 1946. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For convenience, here is a link to the previous discussion - Talk:Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma/Archive_1#Name_of_article. DuncanHill (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Lord Mountbatten (which redirects here). Common name per a Google Scholar/Books search for mountbatten. Precedent in RMs for Lord Byron (2010), Lady Gregory (2021), Lord Dunsany (2021), and Lord Kelvin (2023). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Lord Mountbatten seems to be the better title per internet sources used on the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Mountbatten is best known by his title and we shouldn't follow bad precedents. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is he, though? The only place I've ever seen his full title (with the tautoligical inclusion of his surname, and 'Burma') is here, on this article, and the one about his murder. Otherwise - as shown by Ngrams - he's best know as Lord Mountbatten or Lord Louis Mountbatten. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  The title is "Mountbatten of Burma", it's done like that for a reason. DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Lord Mountbatten per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Weak support Lord Mountbatten, per ngrams[2] estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The name is perfectly recognizable and moving it would only disrupt the consistency with the pages on his successors, namely Patricia Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma and Norton Knatchbull, 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Keivan.f^Talk 16:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, more WP:CONCISE and still recognizable and WP:COMMONNAME. I would also suggest renaming Patricia Knatchbull similarly as she is also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC there though Norton Knatchbull needs more disamb so it should stay as is or be shortened to Norton Knatchbull, Earl Mountbatten of Burma. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Louis Mountbatten alone is not his common name as has been pointed out above. Keivan.f^Talk 02:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah yup, didn't clarify, support moving to Lord Mountbatten not Louis EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Keeping the article title at its current location ensures clarity, and consistency with the articles on his father and daughter. Векочел (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given the competing concerns (redundancy, consistency, concision, precision, honorifics, common name), I think it best to leave it alone. Srnec (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCPEER. He was never referred to as Louis Mountbatten. He was referred to as Lord Louis Mountbatten until he received a peerage, but that title is completely incorrect thereafter. He is commonly referred to as Lord Mountbatten, but almost every peer is commonly referred to as "Lord So-and-So"; it's no different from someone being commonly referred to as "Professor So-and-So", "Mr So-and-So" or "Sir So-and-So", and I presume you're not advocating that we should move every article to that common a name! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I am not advocating that argumentum ad absurdum. I am advocating we call the article either Louis Mountbatten or Lord Louis Mountbatten, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCPEER. Lord Mountbatten would also be acceptable. The extra disambiguation is tautological and unnecessary. We write for readers; do reader really come here and enter "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma" into the search box? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So, are you advocating that all peers should be moved to their personal names? Or just this one? Because if the former, this is certainly not the forum to do it. And if the latter, why just him? As I said, Lord Louis Mountbatten is entirely incorrect after he was ennobled. Incidentally, it's not tautological at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that all peers should be moved to their personal names? (I mean, yes, they should be, unless they need disambiguation, but I've not proposed that anywhere, and won't, because life is too short.) Why him? As I explained in my nomination, to follow WP:NCBRITPEER: Use the title except When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known: e.g. Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Lord Byron. Maybe you don't think "Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten" is tautological, maybe it isn't in the strictest sense of the word, but it's certainly silly, repetitive, and not what someone will type into a search engine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I can understand that rationale for Lord Mountbatten, but not Louis Mountbatten (which was your actual proposal), which he is almost never known as, or the entirely incorrect Lord Louis Mountbatten. I would point out that Byron and a handful of others (usually authors) are exceptions; many peerage titles have a single individual who is best-known (e.g. Duke of Wellington, Lord Salisbury), but we still use their full name and title, usually with a redirect from the title as here. When a system works perfectly well there is no need to change it, especially not article by article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to Lord Mountbatten. Most likely search term for a reader. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.