Talk:William Balfour (general)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

"popery"

It's a historically accurate term, used in the source from which the article was taken. It's offensive, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. This would be like not properly explaining the source of John J. Pershing's nickname. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were writing in 1642 or 1885, or writing a historical novel, your edit might be correct. However, we're writing our new encyclopedia article in 2011 and no one would use "popery" as a synonym for Catholicism in 2011. It's not censorship if we're just updating an archaism. And the reader is just one click away (at the bottom of the page) from the original 1885 article in the DNB if he wants to see how they did it in the olden days. If we push your logic to the extreme, don't we end up with the old source article with no changes allowed? Sarek, please reconsider your edit. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sarek. "Popery" actually explains his actions: in its day it was a vindictive word used for a vindictive purpose. It is not strictly the same as saying "anti-Catholic" or something similar. It is linked and it has a parenthetical comment (maybe it didn't on 7 March), so I see no problem. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

slur on the Scots, in a quotation

In the third full paragraph after the lead, in a quotation, Clarendon says Balfour acted 'according to the natural custom of his country,' (i.e. Scotland), when he decided to be disloyal to the king. The full quote appears in the 1885 DNB article but it's not in the earlier 1807 facsimile version available online see page 553. So, should it be included in our article? --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Tougher than my previous reply. There is no easy answer to this. Some would say that the later entry is more considered, merely because of the effluxion of time, whereas others might argue that it is more pointed for the same reason. Can it not be reworded to introduce both - it is, after all, a difference in the sources. "In 1885 ... However, the same publication in 1807 said/omitted ..."

To be honest, I'm not even sure how reliable the DNB might be considered that far back. I doubt it had the sort of scrutiny that the modern publication has. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]