text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled List of US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic, since moved to List of U.S. Cold War power plays, then moved to List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945.

This page is kept as an historic record.

Due to a lack of consensus, the result of the debate was to keep the article.

As with the Soviet list above, this article is inherently POV. It currently reads like anti-US propaganda. In order to become even remotely NPOV, we would need to define for each of the events listed: "alleged" by whom and how trustworthy is the allegation that the listed event even took place? (if it were proven, then we wouldn't have listed so many as "alleged"), who considers this event "imperialistic" and why? who does not (or did not) consider it imperialistic and what were their counter-arguments? etc. I don't see enough value to the potential article to justify the effort of overcoming the inherent POV in the current version. Rossami 15:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I like this article, but it does need some cleanup. I don't think the article itself is intentionally POV, but it might seem to be deliberately POV to someone with diametrically opposite views (in general. I'm not pointing at Rossami here.) And as far as I know, all of these events did indeed take place. Is there any other article on wikipedia that has this information gathered under similar circumstances? Rhymeless 16:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If this article is inherently and uncorrectably POV, shouldn't we be debating History of United States imperialism as well? (The talk page for that, by the way, contains the list.) Grendelkhan 17:02, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
 * Delete. Intentional or not, this article is inherently POV. It can only be fixed by attribution to a verifiable source -- either for the whole list, or for each individual item. Even if all these events are verifiable, it does not answer who considered the actions imperialistic. But apparently not all the items are verifiable, since many are "alleged." Who "alleged"? The sources must be identified and verifiable. Otherwise anyone could add anything to the list, no matter how ridiculous. (e.g., "the US reduced the nationwide speed limit to 55." I'm sure someone will find a way to claim that was imperialistic, especially if their own credibility is not at stake). -Rholton 00:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Awkward title, most unlikely to become encyclopedic. To make it worth keeping we would need to document whose opinions these are, as Rholton quite rightly says. But even then IMO it's likely that we'd want to merge this information into articles on the people concerned and delete this page. Currently there isn't anything to merge, it is pure POV and no information. Andrewa 01:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with History of United States imperialism. It does need a lot of work, but I think it can be rescued by listing sources and removing items if we can't find sources.  jaredwf 06:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many items in this list that are not controversial, but proven facts--Operation Ajax and Operation PBSUCCESS for example. There are also many there that are true, but just don't have articles written for them yet. This list is important as a reference point.--GD 08:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This article was an extension of History of United States imperialism. So I suggest we rename the article to List of U.S. imperialistic actions.--GD 18:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. who is to do the considering? --Jiang 08:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but either merge with History of United States imperialism or better still rename article to a less POV name, like List of US foreign intervention since 1945. Deus Ex 22:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agreed with Deus Ex. It'd be better to modify and improve this article, rather than delete it. The "considered imperialistic" title is bad. It's also possible to add U.S. actions that e.g. prof. Chomsky calls "very good" for balance, i.e. events where the majority of the population clearly supported the U.S. action, such as liberating France during WWII. --Nimc 09:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Whatever happens here should happen to the soviet one too. -- EmperorBMA|話す 06:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, "considered imperialistic" is inherently POV. Maximus Rex 06:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Several times the term "inherently POV" has been used and I must challenge this. This term is not applicable to Wikipedia content. For a word, title, sentence, paragraph or article to be "inherently anything" the relevent charactoristic must be subsumed within the very nature of the object or construct. But when a construct is as fluid and dynamic as a Wikipedia article its nature or essense follows from the ongoing activities that construct it: Wikipedia is an existential world. Inherently POV means that an article has a fixed nature that editing will not fix. But these articles can easily be NPOVed (as we define it at Wikipedia). We define neutral, not in terms of Aristotle's golden mean taking only a middle ground on every issue (these articles would never be neutral in this sense of the word), but rather as a balanced plurality of viewpoints within each article. No Wikipedia article is inherently POV for the simple reason that there is no issue (that I am aware of) to which there is only one point of view. Any Wikipedia article can be NPOVed by adding alternative points of view or challenging the accuracy of the existing POV. If these two articles are POV (which I think everyone agrees they are), then NPOV by adding alternative explanations. Fix, don't destroy. mydogategodshat 10:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I renamed it "List of U.S. Cold War power plays". A less POV title. Kingturtle 05:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Your title is not very good. You miss the point of those who criticize US actions who claim that the Cold War was a coverup for more important motives, as this list is supposed to demonstrate (the Pentagon budget that used to be explained in Cold War terms kept increasing in 1990+ by stating other reasons.) Also, the 'power plays' term is not so great. IMHO the title that Deus Ex suggested is neutral and probably best. --Nimc 10:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * How about List of allegedly imperialist US actions since 1945? RadicalSubversiv E 10:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Imperialist is a loaded term, and maybe not that accurate either. Sometimes people use the term neo-imperialism, i.e. "stability" by remote control to get economic domination etc etc. Anyway, what is wrong with List of US foreign interventions since 1945 ? --Nimc 11:47, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The goal of the article is not to list foreign interventions, but to list actions of the U.S. government which critics view as imperialist. This is a perfectly valid topic, assuming it is presented in an NPOV manner. Some of the actions listed aren't foreign interventions per se, and some foreign interventions wouldn't qualify (e.g. no one ever called U.S. involvement in Somalia imperialistic). RadicalSubversiv E 06:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * as far as somalia goes, the US invited the tv networks to broadcast the intervention, their camera lights actually obstructed the marines while they landed, and in the end they killed about as much people as they rescued. if i understood your logic, you claim that e.g. somalia shouldn't be in this list, and therefore the title should contain the word 'imperialist' ?! if so, i disagree with both the premise and the deduction... but anyway we should care more about the content of the article, and not whether the title is too neutral(=sanitized) or not accurate enough for your taste... note that your US apologist friends here want to delete it altogether... --Nimc 08:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to List of U.S.A. foreign interventions since 1945 (for NPOV example), then delete POV redirections List of US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic and List of U.S. Cold War power plays. Agree that History of United States imperialism title is POV, but that's a different article and a different debate. --Zigger 19:21, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
 * I like the above option Burgundavia 20:24, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge this and the Soviet one into a mega-article on 'Imperialism and the Cold War' and delete the current titles. It'd be good for the title to abstract away from either country in particular. It's v.POV to both at the moment, but the content could be okay with some qualifiers. The intro to such an article could clarify that "some people see strong analogies between imperialism and the cold war conflict" or similar. -- EuroTom 21:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wake up... the Cold War ended a long time ago... --Nimc 22:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but if you're combining with the Soviet one, it'd be appropriate for stuff up to 1989. More recent interventions could go under "Recent American interventions" or something. Argueably, the two periods have quite different geopolitics. It'd also help seperate out the more historical aspects of the articles from parts specific to current events. -- EuroTom 13:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it should be sourced. - SimonP 22:57, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If kept, rename to "Things that the US has done, or is thought to have done, that some people didn't like, but which the author didn't have the energy to provide references for".  Kd4ttc 02:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The new name is even worse. Delete now.  This article is completely POV.  RickK 02:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I offered an alternative title suggestion above, but I'd like to formally vote to Keep. The subject matter is inherently encyclopedic; there is a significant stream of political thinking (perhaps best exemplified by Noam Chomsky) which views American foreign policy, particularly post-WWII, as a series of imperialist actions, overt and otherwise; providing a list of such actions is therefore a worthwhile project. Obviously such a list should be presented in an NPOV manner, but that's a case for improving the article, not deleting it. And yes, there should be citations, but those shouldn't be hard to come up with. RadicalSubversiv E 04:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is a particularly bad reference for this. He is a fine linquist and his contributions to lingusitics and psychology are important.  His forays out of his field are just that.  Perhaps the list is one that Chomsky has created.  In that case, fold it into the Chomsky article in the section on his political views. Kd4ttc 05:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you or I think Chomsky is component at foreign policy analysis. The point is that a rather considerable number of people do, and his writings and commentary is influential both inside and outside the United States. I see no evidence that the list originates with him, however; I merely cited him as an example of a stream of political thinking which is very concerned with such events, and views them in a certain light. RadicalSubversiv E 06:10, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does matter what we think about this. Wikipedia is not a platform for political views.  It is an encyclopedia.  The problem with the current article is that it is not encyclopedic.  An encyclopedic article would discuss the political thinking behind the list, include information about the strength and weaknesses of the argments, and put it in historical context.  If the article included an essay on the "significant stream of political thinking" it would quality.  But without the discussion of the underlying political thinking it is just a POV rant.  Of course, a factual list would be just the way Chomsky would rant.  That the article would fit well with Chomsky's views is evidence that the article is POV.  If the article were encyclopedic Chomsky would criticise it for having been coopted by the right.  As Radicalsubversiv concludes, the article is consistent with a view "in a certain light", which sounds like a POV article in the first place. Kd4ttc 16:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Sunflower River

The Sunflower River (also known as the Big Sunflower River) is one of the main tributaries of the Yazoo River in the U.S. state of Mississippi. It is navigable by barge for 50 miles. It rises in DeSoto County, Mississippi near the Tennessee border and flows south for 100 miles to the Yazoo River, a major tributary of the Mississippi River. At Clarksdale, the county seat of Coahoma County, the annual Sunflower River Blues & Gospel Festival is held.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers maintains a navigation channel, thirty miles in length. Built in 1976, the channel is used by barges and pleasure craft.

According to the USGS, variant names include Hushpuckaman Creek. The Hushpuckena River drains the northwestern part of the Sunflower River Basin, Quiver River drains the northeastern portion, and Bogue Phalia drains the west central portion of the watershed, all of which lies in the alluvium soil of the Yazoo Delta. At Sunflower, Mississippi, the river flow measures approximately 1,099 cubic feet per second.

Water quality
Like the Yazoo, this river is silt laden. The river collects mud from runoff in the bayous and small streams that feed it. The river has a distinct "Clear-Mud Line" where it meets the Yazoo, showing that the Big Sunflower is muddier than the Yazoo at their confluence.

Archaeology
Early investigators of Native American culture identified many mound sites along the river. With what is now known of the cultures in the Southeast, scholars believe these earthwork mounds to have been built by cultures that existed before the emergence of the Choctaw and Chickasaw peoples. Clarence B. Moore conducted notable studies of the earthworks on the river near Holly Bluff, about a half a mile from the entrance to Lake George.

Wildlife refuges
Land use along the river and in the watershed is predominantly agricultural, with many large-scale, industrial-style farms. From the antebellum period into the 20th century, cotton was the major commodity crop.

Three forested areas have been designated as national wildlife refuges, the Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge, the Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge, and the Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge; all are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In August 2023 the largest state alligator of record was killed in the river.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sunflower River


text:
Mary Dresselhuys

Mary Dresselhuys (January 22, 1907 – May 19, 2004) was primarily a Dutch stage actress, although she also appeared in a number of films. She was born in Tiel, the Netherlands, and died in Amsterdam.

Dresselhuys portrayed more than 150 characters during her long career. She acted in a wide range of roles but was most known as the Queen of Comedy, and continued to perform well into her 90s. After she turned 80, she asked Paul Haenen to write a play, Een bijzonder prettig vergezicht ('A particularly pleasant view'), in which she and her daughter Petra could perform together. At the age of 85 she played a part in the movie Eline Vere, and at 90 she was back on stage to do a retrospective of her career, together with Paul Haenen.

Early years
Dresselhuys began acting while still a gymnasium student. Spending her vacations with her grandmother in The Hague, she took every opportunity to go to the theatre, getting a front row seat if possible. Already in her teens she managed to see about 200 plays, making notes about the plays and actors she saw in a notebook which she kept throughout her life.

After high school Dresselhuys spent half a year in at English boarding school, after which she took the entrance exam for the Toneelschool (drama school) in Amsterdam without her parents' knowledge. She passed.

After graduation, in 1929 Dresselhuys, won her first role in the play Men trouwt geen meisjes zonder geld (One Doesn't Marry Girls Without Money). From 1931 till 1945 she played with the Centraal Tooneel company. She appeared on stage in Wie is Janus? (Who is Janus?)), a translation of Carolyn Green's play Janus, in 1958.

Selected filmography:
 * The Cross-Patch (De Kribbebijter) (1935) .... Mary
 * The Village on the River (Dorp aan de rivier) (1958) .... Mrs. Van Taeke
 * Vroeger kon je lachen ('You used to be able to laugh') (1983) .... Woman at station
 * Eline Vere (1991) .... Mevrouw van Raat

title: Mary Dresselhuys


text:
User:Carandol~enwiki

I'm English, with a maths MA (Camb), and a reasonably comprehensive knowledge of many other matters. Mostly, I'm contributing to Wikibooks under the same name.

title: User:Carandol~enwiki


text:
Current River (Ozarks)

The Current River forms in the southeastern portion of the Ozarks of Missouri and becomes a 7th order stream as it flows southeasterly out of the Ozarks into northeastern Arkansas where it becomes a tributary of the Black River, which is a tributary of the White River, a tributary of the Mississippi River. The Current River is approximately 184 mi long and drains about 2641 sqmi of land mostly in Missouri and a small portion of land in northeastern Arkansas. The headwaters of the Current River are nearly 900 ft above sea level, while the mouth of the river lies around 280 ft above sea level. The basin drains a rural area that is dominated by karst topography, underlain by dolomite and sandstone bedrock with a small area of igneous rock southeast of Eminence, Missouri. The annual daily mean discharge of the river near Doniphan, Missouri is 2815 cuft per second. In 1964, over 134 mi (160 km) of the upper course of the river and its tributaries were federally protected as the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, the first national park in America to protect a river system.

Source and tributaries
The Current River begins in Montauk State Park located in the southwestern corner of Dent County in southeastern Missouri. The confluence of Pigeon Creek and Montauk Spring form the headwaters of the river. Montauk Spring makes up most of the consistent flow of the headwaters, providing ideal conditions for trout fishing. After leaving Montauk State Park the river enters the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The uppermost reaches of the river are swift with numerous riffles broken by deep pools of crystal clear water, farther downstream the riffles continue but get farther apart. Hardwood trees, rock ledges, caves, springs, gravel bars, and towering dolomite bluffs line the banks of the river. Welch Spring, a first magnitude spring, enters the river approximately 14 mi downstream from the headwaters, nearly doubling the flow of the river. Other notable springs to add to the river include Cave Spring, Pulltite Spring, and Round Spring. Downstream from the headwaters approximately 52 mi the Current River receives its largest tributary the Jacks Fork from the west near the small town of Eminence, Missouri. Blue Spring, another first magnitude spring, empties into the river, 9 mi downstream from the confluence with the Jacks Fork.

The Current River is approximately 86 mi long when it passes by the town of Van Buren and under U.S. Route 60. South of Van Buren a few miles the Current River receives its second biggest tributary, the largest spring in the Ozarks and one of the largest single spring outlets known in the world. Big Spring empties into the river providing nearly 470 cuft of water per second. From Big Spring the river continues southeasterly leaving the Ozark National Scenic Riverways 105 mi from the headwaters. The river then flows through Mark Twain National Forest until reaching Doniphan, Missouri and passes under U.S. Route 160. From here the river slows as it exits the Ozark Highlands, the river continues its slow silt laden path into Arkansas where it receives the Little Black River from the northeast before it joins the Black River near Pocahontas, Arkansas.

Recreational activities
Canoeing, fishing, horseback riding, and camping are popular activities along the Current River. The river is fairly gentle and is considered to have mostly class 1 rapids and a few rated class 2.

Some of the points of interest along the course of the river include Montauk State Park, Welch Spring and its abandoned tuberculosis hospital, Aker's Ferry, Cave Spring, Devil's Well, Deer Leap, Rock House Cave, Pulltite Spring, Round Spring, Jacks Fork, Blue Spring, Rocky Falls (on a small tributary), and Big Spring.

title: Current River (Ozarks)


text:
Talk:Local government in Fiji

Comment from Jmabel
Does anyone plan to expand this? As it stands, it just replicates part of the article on Fiji. -- Jmabel 21:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Sitiveni Rabuka - Roko Tui Cakaudrove?
I have no recollection of this ever appointment ever occuring. I think this is bogus, let me confirm --Xorkl000 13:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I saw it in some newspaper report that Rabuka had been appointed chairman of the Cakaudrove Provincial Council. That doesn't make it correct, of course.  Please do check it, and if wrong, remove it.  David Cannon 14:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 * yes thats right, but chairman of the PC is a different position. Roko is a civil service position in the ministry of fijian affairs, responsible both  the ministry and their respective provincial council - --Xorkl000 09:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * okay 71.46.246.63 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Council Chairman & Mayor
The tables list the Council Chairman and the Mayor, but don't give the date of election or the date the table was last updated. Without this information, the data is unreliable. Senator2029 ➔leave me a message 06:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Local government in Fiji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706210709/http://www.itc.gov.fj/lawnet/fiji_act/inter_act_list.html to http://www.itc.gov.fj/lawnet/fiji_act/inter_act_list.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040614205924/http://www.regdev.gov.fj/dos.htm to http://www.regdev.gov.fj/dos.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Both archives work. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Local government in Fiji


text:
Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark

Untitled
Ow. Whoever wrote this, you broke my brain. How did you possibly write all that? @_x; --Eequor 21:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is claiming a title for that "princess" that simply cannot apply; Greece has been a Presidential Democracy for years now and all nobility titles have been rendered invalid. Calling that person a "princess" is mere royalist propaganda, and its against the law and the will of the Greek people. Etz Haim 04:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I removed the notable tag because the notable tag has been deleted. Snowspinner 02:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * The fact is that she was born a princess of Greece and Denmark, and your objection that calling her by a title she actually had and was referred to when when alive is propaganda is ridiculous. The monarchy was abolished in 1974/5, when she was 72 years old! - Nunh-huh 03:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, that makes her former princess, doesn't it? By the Greek Constitution, nobility titles just don't exist. And she did lose her title when she was alive. Attributing someone with an inexistent title openly defies the Constitution, and it is indeed propaganda, extreme royalist, anti-democratic, illegal and against public consensus. If that person still has a valid Danish nobility title (I honestly don't know much about Danish titles), then this article should be named "Olga, princess of Denmark", and mention that she was a member of the former Greek royal family. Etz Haim 08:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The Greek constitution has nothing to do with it. Its full text relating to nobility is "Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in Greek citizens." She was born a princess of Greece and Denmark; that's essentially her birthname; it wasn't conferred upon her after the constition. Lack of recognition is not abolition. And in 1975 at the time of the adoption of the constitution she was not a Greek citizen, having married Prince Paul of Yugoslavia. She's listed here because of Wikipedia's convention that "maiden" names rather than married names are used. When titles are abolished, it doesn't erase them from history, and you're being quite silly. You're confusing a title with an office, or with a claim to power. Someone being "Lord Mountbatten of Burma" doesn't mean he claims to rule Burma, and when Burma becomes Myanmar, he doesn't become "Lord Mountbatten of Myanmar". And Wikipedia doesn't need to start applying titles that people never had: Olga was not a "Princess of Denmark"; she was a "Princess of Greece and Denmark". In the same way that say, William, the Prince of Wales' son, is a "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" but not a "Prince of Northern Ireland". - Nunh-huh 20:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Nunh-huh, this is a matter of protocol with the nature of the Hellenic state irrelevent. Interestingly, ISTR that a very similar complaint over the former King of Greece occurred at the Prince of Wales' wedding, so...
 * James F. (talk) 20:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is completely standard to refer to members of former royal families by their titles of pretense. This is not to give credence to their claims - it is just how these people are referred to. In the case of Olga, this argument is particularly ridiculous - when she married, she was, indeed, a princess of Greece and Denmark (she presumably continued to be a princess of Denmark after 1975). After that, she was Princess Paul of Yugoslavia. The standard is to use maiden name - that was her maiden name. Similarly, we have Princess Alice of Battenberg for the Duke of Edinburgh's mother. Her family ceased to be known as Battenberg in 1917, but since she was already married, that doesn't apply to her. As far as it goes, the Greeks generally seem to utterly detest their royal family, and particularly the fact that they still claim to be the royal family of Greece. This should be discussed somewhere, perhaps in an article on Greek royal family, or some such. john k 20:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * We try to give people the names they were born with, and she was born a princess. Furthermore, even if we accepted she were an ex-princess, it would still be the highest title she ever had and would therefore apply. Deb 21:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it considered OK to name it, "Olga of Greece and Denmark"? Refer to Naming conventions (names and titles). In particular:

 * Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Duke of Windsor, Juliana of the Netherlands not ex-Queen Juliana or Princess Juliana.

[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 21:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * She was never a monarch, and thus is not a deposed or former monarch -- though the point of the cited policy is that deposed and non-deposed, former and current monarchs receive identical treatment. Monarchs don't get "King" or "Queen" in their article titles. - Nunh-huh 22:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current practice in Greece is that people who died having a nobility title, their title is valid post-mortem. This applies for Constantine's father who is still refered as "King Paul". This is not however the case with Constantine himself, who was stripped of his title while alive. Also, Constantine's family name is not "of Greece"; it's the "Glucksberg" that he unfortunately considers offensive. The Greek state offered him an alternative and he had to choose a valid name (by Greek legal standards) after his dethronement; however he chose not to. Last time he entered Greece with a danish passport calling him "Constantine Dellagrecia".

Some of the comments above express total disregard of the Greek law, constitution, and public consensus in favor of their interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. This is very sad. I don't think there's anything wrong with the policies themselves, but every policy is of limited scope and applies to certain cases only. Wikipedia's naming policies simply cannot impose names that aren't there in the real world. Etz Haim 00:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Lovely. However, this is not Greece. For clarity, we use the standard practice in the Western world (well, the US / UK / France / Germany / Spain / &c.; call it what you will), not the specific practices as used at any one point in the country of origin of the person, institution, or otherwise - these are policies for the entire globe. Thus, the correct name by Wikipedia standard policies is, indeed, "Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark".
 * James F. (talk) 00:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Names that aren't there in the real world? That's ridiculous. The members of the former Greek royal family themselves continue to use their titles (even those who have been born since the end of the monarchy). In general, we call people by the names they call themselves, whether or not the government of the country they were born in recognizes their right to use those names. john k 03:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the third time I spot the word "ridiculus" on the comments above me, and I've had enough of it. Should I have mentioned how ridiculus "Princess of Greece" sounds to me, 30 years after the constitutional reform that abolished monarchy in my country? It is ridiculus indeed. However, I didn't use this word so far, knowing that I was addressing people living outside of Greece that do not know the situation here in Greece as well as I do. I used extreme courtesy and patience trying to make my point, and I would expect some courtesy in return.

Now, some people have mentioned a naming "protocol" or a "standard practice" in the "Western world". The particular point involving the "Western world" cliched rhetory is self-centered and offensive, and it's part of the broader, discriminative idealogy of the "White man's burden". It's an insult with racial characteristicts to the people of the Orient, or those who have historical/cultural bonds with it.

And what is this "protocol" after all? Is it something that applies universally and undisputedly, much like the gravitational constant? It's a set of rules that may have some form of formal recognition, by law or by Constitution, in a country that has an established monarchy. It's part of that country's royalist folklore. I don't think that France has a royalist folkore; two words for you: French Revolution. So does Greece.

So far, summarizing from the above, there are three sets of standards that could help as decide whether Olga is a "Princess of Greece":
 * Irrelevant misinterpretations of Wikipedia's naming policy,
 * "Western world" bigotry, that refuses a sovereign country its right to define its form of state,
 * The Greek law.

Why is this a difficult choice? Etz Haim 09:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I sympathise with the annoyance that Etz Haim and most Greeks feel at foreign countries which ignore their democratic decision to become a republic and abolish all titles of nobility. For ex-king Constantine to be invited to state functions in Britain as "King of the Hellenes," for example, is an insult which Greeks rightly get very angry at. However Wikipedia is not a country and does not have diplomatic relations with Greece. It is an encyclopaedia, and its policy is to refer to all people by the names by which they are or were most commonly known, without taking into account any political factors, no matter how valid those factors might be in other contexts. The fact is that Olga was, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, known as Princess Olga all her life, and that is the decisive fact here. The alternatives are presumably to call her either Olga Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (her maiden name) or Olga Karageorgevic (her married name), both of which would be absurd since no-one has ever heard of those names. Etz Haim, zito singnomi alla den boro na sou stiriso me afto to zitima. Adam 10:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * What on earth are you talking about? Nobody is "ignor[ing] their democratic decision to become a republic". Greece is a republic, and the rest of the world cheerfully admits that the people who hold titles of the form "X of Greece" are ordinary people in Greece, with no powers of any form there. Noel (talk) 23:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adam, thanks for your comment. My wish is to resolve this dispute in a constructive manner rather than be consumed in arguing with someone advocating the "Western world" bias. Your opinion means much to me. I wouldn't want the Greek objections on this crucial issue to be disregarded. I would expect from Wikipedia to at least provide a disclaimer saying that this article title (or titles) does not suggest a position on this particular issue of Greek politics, and it is the names these people have been using for themselves. In such a case, I would remove the NPOV tag myself. Etz Haim 10:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth here is my opinion. Bits of it sound trite but they aren't meant to be. Other bits will sound like total non-sequiturs - and they probably are:-

 * Firstly, names, titles and styles are merely labels - they don't have to be accurate to be used - I, for instance, have no connection with Armagh per se (apart from a similar-looking tartan), and the astronaut Scott Carpenter was not of that profession.

 * Again, Sargon I of Akkad styled himself King of the Four Quarters of the World - now I reckon that three of the quarters of the world would have disputed this, and King Hammurabi of Babylon could have had no comprehension of the Universe of which he styled himself king.

 * Conversely England and Scotland, constitutionally kingdoms within the UK, don't even get a mention in the full style of the head of state, whereas the Province of Northern Ireland does.

 * Also how many know that the bird known as 'turkey' is only called this because it was thought to be the same as another bird which originated in Turkey - it is now known that this was not the case, but it still bears the name. (One could also cite the case of the 'West Indies' in this respect also)

 * Secondly, history is always written with a bias - and it is not the job of an encyclopaedia to introduce a clinical neutrality for fear of causing offence and thereby omitting information. Indeed, the fact that from some quarters offence may be caused is itself worthy of being recorded.  Having said that, any such bias should not be covert or propogandist.  --JohnArmagh 17:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Etz Haim - in most countries which have abolished their monarchy, their former royalties are generally still referred to by their titles of pretense. This is not, of course, to say that Constantine II, or Michael, or Simeon are actually still the Kings of the Hellenes, Romania, and Bulgaria respectively. It is merely how these people are known. The son of the last King of Yugoslavia is generally called "Crown Prince Alexander," even though the country of which he was crown prince (Yugoslavia) no longer exists. I think all the arguments as to why members of the Greek royal family should still be known by their royal titles have been rehearsed here. It has nothing to do with Greece's right to determine its own form of government. Of course it does. It has to do with Greece's right to determine the names of its former royal family, which seems a highly dubious proposition. At any rate, with Olga, this question seems to be clear - The article is at this location because this was her maiden name. She ceased to use that maiden name long before the Greek monarchy was abolished. As such, there is no other location to put her. The basic problem with what you are demanding is that these people have no other names than "Prince/ss N of Greece and Denmark". I suppose we might call them "Prince/ss N of Denmark" but this would simply be utterly confusing. To call her "Olga Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg" is simply ridiculous - it's astonishing to me that you are claiming that the current naming standard allows names "which are not actually used" when, in fact, these names, however offensive they might be to Greek people (and however horrible a king Constantine may have been), are the only names available to refer to these people. john k 18:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People, thanks for spending some of your time to deal with this issue. And I admit I partially agree with some of your sayings. For instance, I would agree that this is not the place to discuss the impact monarchy had on Greece; this should be part of another discussion. And it's a good thing some of you are concearned about historical bias. At this point, I wouldn't want me (or anyone else) to be consumed in arguing about someone's perception of the so-called "Western world" or every potential naming paradox on Wikipedia or the outside world. It would be better to focus on this article alone and try to adopt a formula to make it less offensive. Adam Carr's recent changes on the article are a positive step, and I have already said something about a disclaimer. Suggestions addressing this particular matter will be largely appreciated. Etz Haim 15:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I've edited Adam's edits. I think calling her first by a name which she never used, and by which she was never known, is deeply problematic. She was "Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark" until she married. Thereafter she was "Princess Paul of Yugoslavia", or perhaps "Princess Olga of Yugoslavia". At any rate, there is no precedent for someone's maiden name being retroactively changed after they've married, at least that I'm aware of. I don't want to start an edit war about this, since we seem to be calming down, but using fictional constructs to name people is, I think, a terrible idea. It should also be noted that "Greece and Denmark" means just that - Greece and Denmark. All of the former Greek royal family remain Princes/ses of Denmark, even though they are no longer in the Danish line of succession. Thus, if you'd like, Constantine is "Prince Constantine of Denmark". He is certainly not "Constantine of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg" - that name was superceded in actual use when George I's father was made a Prince of Denmark in 1853. john k 22:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is not Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg still the family name of the Danish and Greek royal families? If it is, then members of that family should be refered to by that name, as well as by whatever titles they use. To take an almost exact analogy, we have an article on the Duke of Bavaria, which begins: "Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria von Wittelsbach (born July 14, 1933), styled as Duke of Bavaria." How do we distinguish that case from this? Adam 00:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The name of a Royal House is not a surname. Some royal houses have taken surnames, others have not, and in others it's not perfectly clear if they have or if so, what it is. In this case, I do not think you will find many documents that refer to "Olga Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" or "Olga Slesvig-Holsten-Sønderborg-Lyksborg." We shouldn't assign people "surnames" because we feel they "should" have them; we should record the names they used, and were referred to by. - Nunh-huh 02:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would also suggest that very clearly the article on the Duke of Bavaria is wrong. His name is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern. Wittelsbach is not in his name at all, and his surname is "Herzog von Bayern". john k 04:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gah, that article was just a mess of improper names. To clarify, members of former German noble families took their former titles as surnames following 1918. Thus, the members of the Wittelsbach house have as their surname "Prinz von Bayern" (or in the case of the head of the house, "Herzog von Bayern", and of the members of the cadet branch, "Herzog in Bayern"). The Hohenzollerns have as their surnames "Prinz von Preußen". And so forth. The house names, whatever role they may have, are not the surnames of these individuals. Any article which states that their name is "Joe von Wittelsbach" or "Bill von Hohenzollern" is just wrong. The Habsburgs have a more complicated status, as their titles actually were revoked by the Austrian Republic, although most continued to use "Archduke Joe of Austria" rather than "Joe Habsburg-Lothringen"...Dr. Otto Habsburg being an exception, due to the fact that he had to renounce his claims to return to Austria. john k 04:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see I will have to defer to your vast erudition on this subject :) However, I have read in several places that the Wittelsbach and Stuart titles, whatever they may be, will pass to Alois of Leichtenstein when Max of Bavaria dies. Is this not so? -?-

 * Almost. When Franz of Bavaria dies, his heir is Max of Bavaria; when he dies, the claim to his titles would pass to his eldest daughter Sofie, who is married to Alois of Liechtenstein. If Sofie were to die, the heir would be her eldest child Joseph Wenzel Maximilian Maria von Liechteinstein.

 * Now for the other alteration in the article: it's inaccurate to say the Greek Constitution "abolished" titles. The constitution actually says "Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in Greek citizens." This could be paraphrases as "stopped granting titles to, and stopped recognizing titles of, Greek Citizens" but not "abolishing titles already in existence". It does not say "It is illegal to call yourself Princess Olga of Greece"; it says we do not recognize your title. - Nunh-huh 07:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Nunh-huh, the preface of the Greek Constitution that states that Greece is a "Presidential Democracy" should answer your concearn. There's no empty position for the head of the state to be acquired by some future king of queen; the head of the Greek state is the President, period. The reform of the Constitution meant a radical change to the form of the Greek state that did abolish monarchy and all the nobility titles that came with it. And because of the political situation here in Greece (which is, as I've said, part of another discussion) there's no honorary mention to the former royalty. All former Presidents are still addressed as "President" for the rest of their lives and post-mortem, but the ex-King does not have that privilege any more. Etz Haim 10:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I know very well that Greece is not a monarchy. You impute to me a concern that I do not have, and that is because your feelings about the matter are so strong you overinterpret statements. If the UK became a republic tomorrow, and wrote a constitution which said "Titles of nobility or distinction shall neither be conferred upon, nor recognized in British citizens" it would indeed have abolished the monarchy, but it would not have abolished titles: it would have stopped recognizing titles: it's not the same thing. To abolish titles would require additional legislation (e.g. outlawing their use). - Nunh-huh 20:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken. I had an offline talk with a lawyer that told me that the titles lesser than a King, such as a "prince" or a "princess" were never officially recognized, with an exception of Corfu's libro d'oro, if I understood him correctly. I think John K says something like this in some of his comments below. I expect some more feedback from the lawyer, so stay tuned. Etz Haim 21:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg... for most Greeks, too difficult to pronounce and too long to remember. Nevertheless, I still think it's worth to mention this. Also, as an extra piece of information, most Greeks know her as Olga Glucksburg-Karageorgevic (saving the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-thing). You should decide how to use this according to your sets of standards. But please don't get consumed in this "protocol" debate and keep in mind what I have said in my previous comments. Etz Haim 10:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Bavaria, Sofie inherits the Jacobite claims. The Bavarian claims are bound by Salic law, and pass to Prince Ludwig (or, more likely, his son, since he's considerably older than the Dukes of and in Bavaria). Re: noble titles, my understanding is that there were never any noble titles in Greece, even under the monarchy. As to monarchical titles, I'm not sure how the "presidential democracy" thing is at all relevant. Clearly Greece is a republic now. And clearly Greece does not recognize the claims of its former royal family to use "Prince/ss of Greece." That does not necessarily mean, however, that those titles can no longer be used outside Greece. For instance, Austria abolished all noble titles after 1918, but the Habsburgs still call themselves "Archduke of Austria", and their usage is generally followed by, for instance, other royal courts. The same seems to be the case for the Greek royal family (where the British, I know, send out invitations to them using their royal titles, much to the chagrin of the Greek government; presumably the Spanish would as well, given that Constantine is the queen's brother...). That is to say, it is unclear if the Greek Republic has the right to prevent people from calling themselves "Prince/ss of Greece" outside of Greece...at any rate, I'm somewhat surprised that Greeks know very much about Olga at all, so far as to have a conventional name to call her. If that is what she's known as in Greece, I suppose that could be mentioned. john k 13:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Why is this a surprise? This is a standard for most married Greek women (see Gianna Angelopoulos-Daskalaki). In previous times, married women had to change their name to their husband's. After the progress of feminism, women can have an option of keeping their maiden name, having both their maiden name and their husband's name, or using their husband's name alone (for those who insinst on being old-fashioned). This is really a cultural issue about the secular naming practices, not much related to the royal "protocol". I'm sure Olga herself would dissaprove a name that any ordinary red-blooded Greek woman could have. Anyway, the royal dynasty in Greece was just called "Glucksburg" by the Greeks and not the full "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg". When it comes to the question, whether Greece can prevent its former royal family from using their "titles" outside of Greece, this is a matter of balance between international law and the powerful royalist lobbying by countries such as Great Britain and Denmark. Etz Haim 13:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm surprised because the name is entirely made up, and not something Olga ever used. By the time the Greek monarchy was abolished, she had been known for decades as "Princess Olga of Yugoslavia," essentially (I think Princess Paul is an anglicism), and if she didn't stop calling herself that because the Yugoslav monarchy was abolished, it certainly makes little sense for her to stop calling herself that because the Greek monarchy was abolished. Also, what is the basis for the claim that "international law" means that the former royal family can't call itself by its former titles? john k 16:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Heh, of course it's not the name she used for herself. I think I've been clear about this. I think she would presumably detest being called this way, probably as much as the Greek people detest her using her title. Of course nobody did care about whether her using her title is right or wrong by the Greek law, so I assume nobody will question if this right or wrong either, especially by something trivial compared to the law, a mere "protocol". It's just the common thing. And this is a test of your loyalty to Wikipedia's policies, as one of them says that most common names should be used. Note that I'm just speaking for Greece; I'm not some self-appointed representative of the lowest common denominator of common sense in the US / UK / France / Germany / Spain / etc. Etz Haim 18:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...the most common name in English is certainly not "Olga Glucksburg-Karageorgevic," which doesn't even show up on google. So surely my loyalty to that wikipedia policy can hardly be under assault. john k 20:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That's a matter of the principles you abide to, not your accuracy or your truthfulness. I've been assuming these two on you since the beginning of this argument. However, it's obvious that for you the protocol weighs as much the law does for me, and there are different interpretations of Wikipedia's policies as well. Etz Haim 20:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decided to become bold and insert the disclaimer I've been suggesting. The discussion here is focusing entirely on matters of protocol, but my first priority is to introduce some political neutrality to this article. I hope you agree with it and continue to discuss protocol issues undistracted. Just remember, the disclaimer links to Naming conventions (names and titles), and people who encounter this should expect a reasonable explanation on that page. Etz Haim 11:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The notice is an insertion of politics, not a politically neutral statement. The title of the article is not a "title of pretense", but an actual title that was actually held, so the notice is, in addition, simply wrong. - Nunh-huh 22:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reason the article is titled this is because we call royal females by their maiden names. That is to say, the article is here because Olga was called this before her marriage, which was in 1923. From her birth in 1903 and her marriage in 1923, she was indisputably Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark. From 1923 to 1945, she was indisputably Princess Paul of Yugoslavia (or Princess Olga of Yugoslavia). After 1945, I suppose it depends on whether her Yugoslav titles continue, but using some contemporary Greek formulation for married women, based on a dynastic "surname" she never used, is clearly ridiculous. As to this policy/law thing, I have no idea what you are talking about. john k

 * It seems to me that it is unfairly projecting the arguably justifiable hatred many Greeks feel for Constantine onto other members of the former Royal Family which is both unjustafiable and unfair in my humble opinion - you can't condemm them all for the actions of Constantine. PMA 10:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not about how bad Constantine was as a monarch (he was bad indeed), it's the Greeks' position on monarchy as an institution. This is quite a long story to discuss it here, but eventually this will be addressed, perhaps in future article about the history of the Greek royalty, the history of the Greek constitution, or even the legacy bonds between the Greek, the American and the French revolutions. Etz Haim 15:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John, please stop flaming this conversation by repeatedly using the word "ridiculus". There are many differences between us, for cultural and historical reasons, and something that may seem pretty normal to you may be ridiculus for me, and vice versa. You have to at least try to overcome this bias and approach different ways of thinking, otherwise we won't be able to discuss anymore. Etz Haim 15:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's ridiculous for you to call my use of the word "ridiculous" a flame!! At any rate, I will try to be more pedestrian in my word choice in the future. So let me restate. "Using some contemporary Greek formulation for married women, based on a dynastic "surname" she never used, is completely unjustified." In any case, as to the monarchy as an institution, there are many countries which have abolished their monarchies. So far as I am aware, Greece is the only which particularly strongly objects to its former royal family using their royal titles outside of Greece. (Others do not recognize them, of course, although some - France for instance - actually officially recognize the use of titles of pretension by its former royal family.) john k 15:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The second version of your counter-argument, besides being more polite, is more specific and allows me to give an answer. Whatever is justified by a royal protocol that demands women of royalty to be addressed in that manner, is unjustifiable by the current Greek naming standards that barely consider "of Greece and Denmark" a name, and vice versa. I've been saying this before, haven't I? Anyway, this should convince you why the word "ridiculus" has no place here. Etz Haim 15:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Princess Olga didn't even live in Greece after 1975. So why is it relevant what she would be called in Greece? I can't imagine that this elderly member of the former royal family would have come up for conversation very frequently in Greece, in any event. And you still haven't addressed the fact that the article is titled as it is because this was Olga's name before her marriage in 1923. john k 16:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I can't really tell if Olga is more popular as a discussion subject inside or outside Greece, and I can't figure out why this should be relevant to our discussion. Should I have addressed issues of the royal naming protocols on the disclaimer notice? Well, it's outside of this particular notice's scope as I see it. Information about why noblewomen are called by their maiden names and not by their married names, and why it's "Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark" instead of "Olga of Greece and Denmark" can't fit into this notice, and belong to the Naming conventions (names and titles) page. There, these issues can be discussed and analyzed to extreme detail. You're obviously better than me on these things, so if you feel anything is missing from there, I'd be glad if you added it. Etz Haim 17:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia. As such, what Greek people call her is relevant only insofar as it influences how people speaking English refer to her. Since the way Greek people call their former royal family has never been adopted outside Greece, it is irrelevant to how she should be called in the English Wikipedia article on her. (Although the whole issue should be discussed at some proper location - there's no article yet on Greek royal family). As to the rest, I continue not to understand what you're talking about. Perhaps we have both lost the thread of what exactly we're disputing, and are arguing about different things... john k 17:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's take a break then... (edit conflict occurs) - Someone has a different opinion. Etz Haim 18:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the disclaimer: specific disclaimers (rather than the generalized disclaimer linked to from all pages) are pretty much deprecated anyway, and there was much that was wrong with this one. If I can be permitted a moment of meta-analysis, it seems to me Etz is looking for a place to say "monarchy bad". This is not the place to say that. Say "monarchy bad" (or "Greek monarchy bad") in an article about the Greek monarchy, not in the article of someone who had become part of another royal family well before Greece became a republic, and whose Greek titles, when she used them, were never in question. - Nunh-huh 18:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * This also means NPOV is back. If I'm right, you are the one that couldn't realize why "neutrality" is an issue here and disputed NPOV in the first place. Your meta-analysis is irrelevant; I was the one that suggested that the whole of Greece's recent history shouldn't be discussed here. Now, find a way to explain to Greek people who come across this article why this is not an endorsement of royalist claims (unless you are actually endorsing them), without offending them. Etz Haim 18:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Not only you did remove the disclaimer, but you've altered the article to fit your own interpretation of the Greek Constitution. You've been already told that "prince/ss" weren't ever recongized, even in the time when Greece was a kingdom. You should have taken this into account. That's not boldness, that's total disregard of what we've been saying here. Etz Haim 18:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * This article doesn't say "monarchy good" so there is no need to add "monarchy bad" to it. All we are doing is using historically accurate titles: neutrality is not an issue. The article makes no "royalist claims"; if the fact that this woman was called Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark offends someone, other historical facts will too. We don't need disclaimers for historical facts. You seem quite confused about how titles work: you now seem to imply that the Greek constitution eliminated titles that didn't exist - and, for it to apply to Olga, retroactively, in a non-citizen. An explanation of how you think this may have happened, or some evidence that it did in fact happen, would be useful. - Nunh-huh 18:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm neither saying "monarchy good" nor "monarchy bad", and especially inside the main article. Perhaps you are mistaking my comments with someone else's.

 * I told you that I had spoken with a lawyer and he had told me something that I didn't know in the first place, that titles lesser than a king weren't ever formally recognized, and quoting John K "Re: noble titles, my understanding is that there were never any noble titles in Greece, even under the monarchy." (New feedback into the discussion does not imply confusion or lack of accuracy. Nobody's confused besides you.)

 * I also know that nobody in the royal family had a role in the administration of the Greek state except for the King himself. This explains the lack of state recognition of lesser nobility titles, that were in fact part of a royalist folklore that ceased to exist. Want a quote from the legislation for this? It takes time, but it can be arranged. In the mean time, remember Maimonides' "Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know' and thou shalt progress."

 * Now, it would be useful if you explained what's that "Olga's Yugoslavian and Greek titles were thus of questionable validity in those respective nations" about, when you know that these titles are indeed invalid, either by law or constitution, and that's a historical fact. Etz Haim 19:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 'Etz Haim is taking a mandatory break from this argument. See you soon. 19:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * What I mean: Greece stopped recognizing titles in her citizens; Olga was not a Greek citizen; therefore there is no argument by which she can reasonably be said to have "lost" her Greek title, which she was in any case not using; and Yugoslavians with titles continued to be known by them after Yugoslavia effectively ceased to exist as a kingdom in 1941 (and after the successor country became a republic in 1945). And yes, I'd love a quote from any pertinent legislation you can provide. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May I add my fourpenn'orth? It strikes me that the name of the article (and at the article of the article) must be a name that is or was actually used for that person. By 'actually used' I don't mean to restrict it to names the individual would have used herself, but rather names other people use or have used to refer to him be it before, during or after his lifetime. Nor do I mean to restrict it to names that people are entitled to use - it is what is actually used.

This, in itself, leaves a lot of options open in this case, but it does seem to close some - what she would have been styled if she were a Modern Greek is irrelevant unless modern-day Greeks really do use that name in real-life when discussing her. And here I do disagree with john k, as I'm sure there is some discussion about Olga in Greece (eg in Greek universities/schools/textbooks when discussing Greek royal history).

So in summary, IMHO, the article should start with a name that is actually used.

Then, out of all the possible names she could be called (which, for the avoidance of doubt, may include names she is not entitled to use, names she herself did not use, or names the Greek government have prohibited her being referred to as) - out of all of those names - which one should be used for an encyclopaedia article?

Answer: there are many possible answers, so an encyclopaedia chooses a style and then applies it. That is what Wikipedia has done in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). So what does that say?

Unfortunately, on this point Wikipedia is unclear. If we accept Olga is 'Royal' (which, as I understand it, Etz Haim does not), then 3.7 and 3.9 and 3.2 if the W:NC(NT) page apply (in that order). She is a past royal consort, so we use her maiden name (3.7), we use the most senior version of the maiden name [that is/was actually used]] (3.9) and we style it in the form specified by 3.2. This gives us the form: Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark.

If we do not accept she is royal, we need to look at Wikipedia: Naming Conventions. Only to find that this offers no guidance. We should also ask, is there any guidance on how we decide whether someone is Royal or not? As far as I am aware, the answer is no.

And I think this is the problem with this debate! There is no guidance to cover which of your preferred styles Wikipedia should adopt.

Where now? Perhaps Etz Haim could check how she really is referred to in Greece amongst those that do actually (from time to time) discuss her (and provide references). If, actually, despite what has been said before she is called Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark, we can leave this debate here and move on. Otherwise, wikipedia needs to add guidance on how we decide if someone is Royal or not. Jongarrettuk 20:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, surely people who were born as members of reigning royal houses cannot genuinely be disputed to be "royals"? If they are not royals, then there's not much point in having any convention at all. The point of royal naming conventions has little to do with whether a country is currently a monarchy. It has to do with the existence of people who don't have normal last names, and how to title articles about them. The Greek royal family, whatever else you may say about it, does not use a normal surname. As such, it falls within the bounds of royal naming conventions, even if the family is no longer reigning, and its titles are not recognized in Greece. As to the question of the title of "Prince," i have never heard that this title was not recognized in Greece under the monarchy. Certainly it was used universally for a fairly large group of people. My understanding is that other noble titles (such as the title "Duke of Sparta" which was used by Constantine I before he inherited the throne) were illegal. But I'm not sure on that. Even if it was always illegal in Greece, this makes the case even stronger - nothing changed in 1975, and these people have consistently been called "Prince N of Greece and Denmark" in English since the 19th century. john k 21:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Royal titles?
Aren't we not supposed to use royal titles in article titles? Maybe this is an exception for some reason. Also, this NPOV dispute seems a little stale. Very Verily 04:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Titles like "Prince" and "Princess" are to be used. King and Queen should not be used. john k 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the dispute tag as the article no longer appears to be disputed. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For Nunh-huh
Hi, Nunh-huh. I would like to revert this page from user 212.202.57.90, from 'screwed up'state, but I could not find your changes to incorporate them. My last change was a photo od HRH Princess Olga. --Ninam 22:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ninam, I think the current version (except I don't see a photo) is correct...that is, I have already emoved the statements that she was Queen and such. I can't really trace where things started to go "wrong", but perhaps the best idea is to just modify the current version if there are any changes to make, like the photo. - Nunh-huh 23:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in this version we have a lot of gossips on her children, and no information on which you spent so much time to clarify. --Ninam 23:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * If you can find it in the history, add it in and I'll check it to make sure she doesn't accidentally become Queen once again. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here it is. Please check and fix what you think is correct. She was not Queen, bat very nice person. --Ninam 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I tidied it up. There's nothing there that I know isn't true, though I'd like to see a reference on "Chips" Channon having a thing for Paul of Yugoslavia. It's possible, I suppose... - Nunh-huh 01:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you, please, explain me <"Chips" Channon having a thing for Paul...> I do not understand. --Ninam 02:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The version you restored indicates that Prince Paul of Yugoslavia had a homosexual affair with Sir Henry ("Chips") Channon. (At least I think it does; it's a bit unclear as to whether it is referring to him or his father). Channon was certainly gay, but I'm not sure that Prince Paul was his "great love". But then I haven't read Channon's rather lengthy diaries. - Nunh-huh 02:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me either. In addition, I do not know anything on his preferences, so in his book or in book on him there are no such objections. Considering that we speak on the deceased person who as we know did not mentioned that fact during his life, think that we could moderate that explicit statement. My English is too rusty, so please. --Ninam 03:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I've been looking around to see if there is some reference: this page quotes Channon's diary, which describes Prince Paul as " the person I have loved most … the only human being with whom I am completely, wholly natural." They shared a house in Westminster with Viscount Gage (presumably the 6th Viscount). I still think it's not clear that they were an "item", only that Channon liked him. And Channon did name his only child "Paul". This page, which is a blog, says that Channon's lovers included Sir Terence Rattigan; Lord Wavell; the King's brother, the Duke of Kent; and Prince Paul of Yugoslavia.  I'll look further, Channon was not "discrete" in his diaries, so if it's so, it will be there. - Nunh-huh 03:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, this is The News for me. So, let that subject stays your contribution. :) --Ninam 04:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed split
Darwinek proposed splitting the article into two separate and adding a disambiguation page, though he doesn't seem to have added an explanation here on the talk page as is customary and courteous in such situations.

Unless the section on Princess Olga Isabelle gets substantively expanded (I suppose in its current state, just about any expansion would be substantive), I strongly oppose the split. There's simply no information there to warrant a separate article page, let alone a second page for the disambiguation. Binabik80 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Removing the tag and adding dab info to the top.  Kaisershatner 17:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


text:
Vodafone live!

Vodafone live! was the brand name for the multimedia portal service of mobile phone operator Vodafone, offering news content, picture messaging, instant messaging, email, and downloadable ringtones and games. The service officially launched on 24 October 2002, originally in eight countries. The first compatible phones were the Japanese Sharp GX10 and Panasonic GD87, and the Nokia 7650.

It was initially developed by Japan's J-Phone under the J-Sky brand. Vodafone acquired J-Phone in August 2001 and the J-Sky service in Japan was rebranded in line as Vodafone live! in 2003. In addition, London-based Vizzavi which provided media content was taken full control by Vodafone (previously 50% owned) in 2002 and the brand name was dropped, being integrated into Vodafone live! The service and its content are modelled largely on NTT DoCoMo's successful i-mode service.

The service was marketed extensively, using stars such as footballer David Beckham in the UK, Spain and Japan. As of May 2003 there were 1.5 million customers. In the UK market its main competing WAP portals were O2 Active and Orange World.

While the service itself could be looked at with any WAP browser, Vodafone live! handsets marketed by the company integrated the service with each handset's core functions. All handsets included a colour screen, a digital camera and the capability to send and receive email, SMS and MMS messages. Vodafone live! had an icon-driven interface that was the same on all compatible models regardless of operating system.

In December 2004, Vodafone live! with 3G services was launched.

Vodafone live! was struggling against competitors i-mode and EZweb in Japan. In 2006 Vodafone announced that its Japanese division will be sold to SoftBank Group. Vodafone live! was replaced there by Yahoo! Keitai.

In September 2009, Vodafone 360 and Vodafone My Web were announced to replace Vodafone live!

title: Vodafone live!


text:
Talk:Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi

Meaning
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi=

Kyunki= Because

Saas= Mother- In- Law

Bhi= Also

Kabhi= Once

Bahu= Daughter- In - Law

Thi= Was

Translation= Because a mother-in-law was once a daughter-in-law

Langugage: HINDI (One of the national language's of India)

How Long?
Wow ! This serial has been running for a long time. Obviously, since the creation of this serial, the viewership has reduced immencly !This serial is bound to stop very soon. If not, why do you think so. And By the way, How old is this "Baa"

i saw the 1st episod of last 20 years leap. they says Baa is now 104 years old :o :o :o. actully ekta kapoor was ready to kill chrector of baa but viewer Loves baa extremely its the 2nd most fav chrector after Tulsi. so she did not kill the charector. instad kill the chreactor of Tulsi saas ( what her name I did not remember) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogsd (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

2040 AD
If the serial made two 20-year leaps, then how come they are still stuck in the present? They should be driving Jet-cars and fighting World War IV or something.

Seriously though, have the producers given any explanation for this anomaly?

Vader1941 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Vader1941

its called Retroactive continuity, they leap ahead 20 years but nothing changes except the characters and their ages  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianguy0987 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Baa How do you explain her long long life ? Yourdeadin (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

Clean Up
Hello to the authors of this page

This page is way too long and contains much trivial information. Recounting the complete story line of the series is not required. Please shorten it to about 1/4 of the current length. If it is not shortened in a few weeks I will do it. Rimmeraj 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I knew you would come and cause problems. No ofeense. You do act like you control every article you get your hands on. Dude take a chill pill. WHAT IS YOUR PROB?? And if you have one keep it to yourself and stop deleting other peoples work before someone puts a ban on you

 * One second. Who made you the boss. Go Ahead delete everything, I have saved it on my jump drive and will put it back. Are you trying to put a THREAT, cause that isnt allowed!!. WE are contributing information and you have no right to delete everything, or threaten others to do so.Aarushi 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To above - your statement makes me laugh out loud. :D Seriously! Just WHAT is teh need for a full story on an encyclopaedic article? And if you are sane enough to do that, why not write an episode by episode story line on a separate article?

I feel the article lacks criticisms of the show - I'll add - and you people please develop into a more stricter view that is held by the teen demographic in the ountry today.

--220.224.116.88 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC) '' Seriously! Just WHAT is teh need for a full story on an encyclopaedic article? And if you are sane enough to do that, why not write an episode by episode story line on a separate article?''

Heh Heh Heh !! Man, you are contradicting yourself now. Seriously, does an encyclopedia need an articles on junk and useless Kekta-Kappo's K-serials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.79.118 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KLogo.jpg
Image:KLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WATS GOIN ON NOW
i live in the u.k, eklayva was just accused of rapin kt, i know from here its myank, jus wanted to know after tulsi comes back to the house with plastic surgery do they finally accept her and does ba die. also where are sahils parents his grandma gyatri looks younger than him, why doesnt anyone call gyatri and daksha great gramdma. everyone calls em dadi, meaning the current kids when they are the great grandmothers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.229.156.40 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

episode list
maybe we should have an episode lisgt like the american shows? 129.215.57.174 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Baa
How old is baa.? 1.According to my calculation she should be around 500 yrs old by now. 2.Will she ever die? 3.Has She consumed some kind of magic portion to live such a long and a healthy life? Yourdeadin (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin

Baa Baa Black Sheep, have you any wool? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Three Bags Full. Ha Ha Ha ......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.79.239 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KLogo.jpg
Image:KLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms
Ekta Kapoor Fangirls, please explain the editing of criticisms. I am reverting back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.89.84 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Smriti Irani's departure
...the article mentions she left the show near june 2007. But that day is awefully far away. Wasnt it somewhere near august/september? I endorse a reassessment.--220.224.24.94 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you live in the UK. Apparently in the UK the show was aired later than India, therefore it is obviously going to take time to catch up --Maurice45 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Messing Up" of the Page
Some idiot really messed the page up and I have taken the liberty of fixing it --Maurice45 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529222113/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2001 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2001
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529222232/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2002 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2002
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504215542/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2003 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2003
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526071531/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2004 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2004
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504215552/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2005 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2005
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210174024/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2006 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402123743/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/event_details.php?id=49 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/event_details.php?id=49

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Star Plus Logo.jpg

title: Talk:Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi