This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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 within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the
Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the
project page, where you can
join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Olympics 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.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the
project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
I propose merging
Felicity Tonkin to this article. She is only notable because of the impact of her conception and birth on her father, her father's first wife (the Princess Royal) and the Royal Family. She is only a subset of any other given article. See also
Talk:Felicity Tonkin#Notability and discuss here.
Charles14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Therefore we can know say that the merge has occured (rather than that it is merely proposed) and delete her article, yes?
Kevin McE (
talk)
19:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
How can one be retired from military service after only 9 years, except for being retired for disability? Since he was an active equestrian after he left military service, it would seem to rule out disability? Mustered out, or honourably discharged, seem more appropriate.
99.20.118.250 (
talk)
04:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)reply
"Military honours"
Captain is a rank, not an honour. It is the position he formerly held in his job. The
Victoria Cross would be a military honour. Captain isn't an honour any more than a position in any other job would be. If he had been assistant manager at a company we wouldn't list that as an honour, and this is the same.
89.100.207.51 (
talk)
20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Being a high-ranking position in the military can be honorary. It makes sense that it would have been put in this section. Honestly, I don't really care what section it's in, so we can move it around if need be. However, it makes sense to have it in the article somewhere. The parent section is "Titles, styles, honors and arms". Title seems appropriate. Removing it from the article outright simply because it's mislabeled isn't the right step forward. Please stop edit warring. You've blanked this section 3 times now. Discuss this first, and then once consensus forms, make the change, per
WP:BRD. —
Jess·
Δ♥20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Captain is not a high rank. It is the third lowest of eleven officer ranks. Please read [
[1]].
As explained in the article, his appointment is not honourary, it is a perfectly standard captain's rank.
Yes, it does make sense to have it in the article somewhere - which is why it's mentioned another six times in the article already.
A rank isn't a title. It's a rank. It describes his relative position within an organisation.
You accused me of edit warring after one revert, and of breaching 3rr after two. That's not what edit warring is, and that's not what breaching 3rr is.
It's not mentioned 6 times. It's mentioned once in the prose of "Military career". Hyperbole doesn't help discussion. Listing it in a section titled "Titles, styles, honors and arms" makes sense. It's even in its own subsection titled "Military". I don't see a problem. If you'd like to seek a third opinion for your change, feel free to pursue
WP:3O. Perhaps others will have a different view. In the meantime, please stop edit warring to remove it. Your edits are, indeed, edit warring. Thanks —
Jess·
Δ♥22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)reply
In the infobox, his name is given as "Capt Mark Phillips" (1); The lede begins "Captain Mark Anthony Peter Phillips" (2); the Military Career section states "By the start of 1974, Phillips was an acting
captain" (4), "Phillips was substantively promoted to
captain in July 1975." (5), and that "After retiring from the Army, Phillips continued to style himself Captain Mark Phillips" (6); the personal life section states "it was confirmed by Capt Phillips' solicitors at the law firm CKFT..." (7). That's seven mentions of his being a captain. Six was not hyperbole. I have reverted only as many times as you have. If I am edit warring, then so are you. Per
WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Unless you have a reliable source that describes his being a captain as a "military honour", then please remove your original research.
89.100.207.51 (
talk)
22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)reply
3 of those appear in the same section, "Military career", which I mentioned above. The others are titles before his name, typically abbreviated. Nothing in the article indicates that "Captain" is an honor. The section for honors is above the section listing him as a captain. As I said, you're more than welcome to get a third opinion if you'd like. I'd be happy to discuss this further if there's anything new to discuss. —
Jess·
Δ♥22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)reply
"Military" is a subsection of "Honours". How can that possibly not indicate that captain is an honour? Per
WP:NOR and
WP:BURDEN, please either remove your original research or provide a citation for it.
89.100.207.51 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned above a few times now, if the mention is in the wrong section, we can move it. I don't have a problem with that at all. We can make "Military" a 3rd level heading (===Military===), for example. The content is sourced to
the London Gazette. —
Jess·
Δ♥17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)reply
daughter (?)Felicity Tonkin
It says in the "Issue" box under the birth column for Felicity Tonkin "DNA testing 1991 confirmation". Earlier in the article it gives her birth as August 1985, and also that Phillips was confirmed as the father after DNA testing DONE in 1991. As is, a reasonable person would interpert it to mean that a DNA test done in 1991 needs to be confirmed, which surely is not the case.
74.69.8.195 (
talk)
14:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)reply
@
Martinevans123: Actually an IP user, who is blocked because of vandalism, added the names of these books to the articles of Mark, Zara and Anne in November 2010. It seems that those books do not contain any information about Zara's birth out of wedlock and the sentence was also removed from Zara and Anne's articles. Keivan.fTalk18:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
He continued to style himself Captain Mark Phillips, as captains are customarily allowed to use this honorific rank in civilian life.
Unless something has changed pretty recently, the only captains who can use their rank in civilian life, are those cavalry officers (like Phillips) whose job, either in the service or afterwards, has principally involved horses. As not many people know of this little item of etiquette, it is easy to assume wrongly that Phillips is out of order in using this rank.
Valetude (
talk)
18:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Mark Phillips. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
The "Personal life" section in the body of the article lists four children: Peter, Zara, Felicity Tonkin, and Stephanie. But the Infobox only lists the first two of these. I thought I should check here before changing it: is there some reason for the discrepancy?
Gronk Oz (
talk)
01:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Celia Homeford: I do like that proposal. The notable ones get linked, without denying the existence of the others. I like it so much I will be Bold and make that change - thanks!--
Gronk Oz (
talk)
14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Requested move 27 March 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.
Support the main proposed version (the one shown in the bullet points above) per nominator, as opposed to the alternative proposed version (the one shown in the paragraph).
Paintspot Infez (
talk)
03:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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.