Talk:William Balfour (general)

"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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)