Talk:Prince Philip movement

Miscellaneous

This can't be true! --Couter-revolutionary 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is, last year it was reported in a few British Newspapers Birddrz 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how upon Earth they heard about him? Well, I'm glad interesting things like this happen.--Couter-revolutionary 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How did they hear about him? His wife is their countries head of state and monarch! Doesn't the much larger Papa New Guinea (sp?) have something similar except with the Queen? YourPTR! 09:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Queen isn't head of State in Vanuatu, since the latter is a republic. She is, however, Queen of Papua New Guinea. And of course she was Queen of the UK at the time preceding Vanuatu's independence, when the New Hebrides were an Anglo-French Condominium. Aridd 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My apoligies, I confused Vanuatu with Tuvalu! The Queen is head of state of many kingdoms in the region and interestingly, she remains Queen of Fiji despite that state having a republican form of government. Oh and she's not "Queen of England", there is no Queen of England title and there hasn't been since the Scottish and English Crowns were united in the early half of the 17th century. She is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. YourPTR! 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

and Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados....etcetcetc86.161.169.224 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The arrival of US forces during the Second World War saw the emergence of a belief in a mythical messianic figure named John Frum. It was the basis for another indigenous cult to rival the one surrounding Prince Philip. Today, John Frum is both a religion and a political party with a member in Parliament —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.169.224 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Factuality??

I am terribly sorry, but to me this whole affair just reeks of urban myth/"benevolent racism". Most of the sources are English tabloids. And even the article in the more respectable Daily Telegraph does not convince me. Is there ANY proof that these islanders REALLY believe that Prince Philip is a god? I think it is more probable that this is just their way to pay respect to their (former) monarch, or even that they found out it is a clever way to get media attention and goods. As long as there is no proof of REAL worshipping, I remain extremely doubtful. --91.7.86.78 (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In an interview Prince Philip told that he has not the right to tell people what they believe in. To say that he is not a divine cloud have very negative effects on those people and so its offical position of the Buckingham Palace that Prince Philip does not claims to be a god but also does says he is not. -- 188.22.142.23 (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting article from the BBC provides little more light. Apparently it's quite serious. I can imagine a situation quite similar to this 2000 years ago... "there's people that worship that guy?" --98.180.61.208 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This phenomenon has been documented several times. The first reference I can think of, is Christopher Hicthens' book "God is not great". If I remember correctly, he devotes an entire chapter to the creation of religions in this way. He usually cites his sources very accurately. 131.130.16.17 (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is definitely quite possible that such a cult exists. Look at the Rastafari belief in Emperor Haile Selassie. They worship him as an incarnation of God, and they live in the Western World.--Splashen (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the quote about him saying that he hasn't got a right to tell them what to believe, someone mentioned a couple of comments up. Something like that should be in the article if so. Sounds like a bit of shocking nonsense. I was surprised by the lack of any mention of him trying to disuade them of his divinity, and actually his actions appear to encourage it. That's not acceptable surely? There must be some reliable source that's addressed that if that is the situation surely? If someone asks you if you're a god you should tell them no. Unless you're a ghostbuster of course.121.74.233.34 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The only source I know expressing some thoughts of Prince Philip (or at least of Buckingham Palace) on this matter is the following one : [1]. Touriste (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And...

When he dies the religion becomes extinct... or is Charles going to became a god too? --190.55.205.155 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nambawan pikinini blong Missis Kwin as a God? Stranger things have happened... Mr Larrington (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That will be up to the followers of this faith, and any speculation on our part would run afoul of WP:BALL. Achowat (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Phil the Greek has now shuffled off this mortal coil so we'll have to keep a keen eye on the media to see what transpires. Mr Larrington (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the followers of this faith are discussing this question. The IP's second suggestion of Prince Charles succeeding Prince Philip appears to be among the possibilities. But according to that article, they did not worship him as a god, but revered him as one of them. Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Cargo cult?

The article calls this phenomenon a cargo cult, but the rest of the description does not square with what I understand to be a cargo cult. Could somebody perhaps expand on this?--2001:984:5CB7:1:B549:92D1:C480:1479 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they really believe that Prince Philip is a 'god' in a sense that he is throwing lightnings or turn water in a wine. Article says they believe he is a 'son of spirit', which rather means something akin to folk hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.146.125 (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The article should be based on what is reported in reliable sources. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2021 (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:

• Yaohnanen Tribesmen Show Pictures of 2007 Visit with Prince Philip.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Verb tense

The article uses both "is a divine being" and "was a divine being". I'm not sure which is better. If they believe in his divinity, they might believe he is not dead. I think we ought to pick one or the other and be consistent, but I'm not sure which is better. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure of their views on immortality and how that might be affected by divinity. But I guess Wikipedia voice has to place Phillip firmly in the past tense. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But how should we describe what they believe? Their belief may involve him existing in the present tense. I have edited the article to sidestep the issue, rephrasing as "believe in the divinity of". — BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This source says that they believe "Prince Phillip is immortal, but if he dies they might transfer allegiance to Prince Charles or perhaps his sons". Somewhat contradictory. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing "is" to "was" is merely pointing out that he's dead. Changing "believe" to "believed" implies that their religious stance has changed, however we don't know this yet..Madbrad200 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Experts on the movement seem to suggest that adherents will now begin to deify Prince Charles following Philip's death ([2]), but I'm not sure what this means re worshipping Philip's divinity after death. (Plus, at this point it is speculation until we hear what the movement is actually doing.) –Bangalamania (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No vanuatu.wiki yet, I guess? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as a data point. Jeshua is dead, but that hasn't stopped people considering him a god. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeshua? All religions differ slightly? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't dig up a link but apparently BBC have talked to the tribe, and they consider him still a god, but his spirit is looking for a place to land. There will be a feast with many pigs eaten. --Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be Wong, Tessa. "Prince Philip: The Vanuatu tribes mourning the death of their 'god'". BBC News. Retrieved 12 April 2021.. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems anthropologist Kirk Huffman is the expert. Apparently: "In 2007, several tribesmen met the duke in person. Flown to the UK for the Channel 4 reality television series Meet the Natives, five tribal leaders had an off-screen meeting with the duke at Windsor Castle where they presented gifts and asked when he would return to Tanna. His reply, as reported by the tribesmen later, was cryptic - "when it turns warm, I will send a message" - but appeared to please them."

"But more importantly, "there has always been the idea that Prince Philip would return some day, either in person or in spiritual form", says Mr Huffman, who adds that some may think his death will finally trigger this eventuality. And so, while the Duke of Edinburgh lies in rest in Windsor Castle, there is the belief that his soul is making its final journey across the waves of the Pacific Ocean to its spiritual home, the island of Tanna - to reside with those who have loved and revered him from afar all these years." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Prince Philip movement" (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Prince Philip Movement → Cult of Prince Philip – or Prince Philip cult or Prince Philip movement (with lowercase 'm'). In a quick review of the cited sources, I do not find a well-accepted name for this religious movement. Thus, the title seems to be a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name. A lowercase 'm' would thus be more sensible. However, the word "movement" also does not seem to provide a very clear identification of the topic. The article says it is a cargo cult. At some risk of a WP:POVTITLE (e.g., per MOS:CULT), using the word "cult" might improve the title's clarity. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• This book uses "Prince Phillip Movement" and also lists "Tuka Movement" which is mentioned at Cargo cult. But not very authoritative looking. Yes, I think a small m is appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cult has somewhat negative connotations. DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately "cult" became pejorative. I agree with lower case "m". (also, will the name of this religion change, in case of Prince Charles becoming the new god?) – Alensha ^talk 19:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would agree with the above that "cult" is far too pejorative. If we do accept this as a cargo cult (which I don't know is entirely accurate – this Telegraph piece from today describes it as a "visionary movement ... different to the cargo cults that developed in other parts of Melanesia", and I'm aware that the concept of a cargo cult is controversial in some quarters of anthropology, though I am no expert on the subject), then I'd say a lowercase-m "movement" is best. John Frum movement for example redirects to the page John Frum, which is described as a "movement" in the article, with John Frum cult being a redlink. –Bangalamania (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'll agree with the lower-case m; for goodness sake, the John Frum stuff is the same. Also per Bangalamania. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  But John Frum is just that. It has no "movement" or "cult" in the title. Should it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Ideally, perhaps. But I think it's acceptable as it is. The subject of that article is the prophet/deity, which is different from the case here, since there is already a different article about Prince Philip himself. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, this recent BBC story uses "Prince Philip Movement" (capital M). — Kawnhr (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  What are the chances they read Wikipedia and assumed that was the official name, since it's not a very well-known movement? Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's certainly possible— this is obviously not exhaustive research, but a quick Google search for results before 2007 (the creation of the article) doesn't seem to have any results on the subject at all, so it may be that Wikipedia spread this name alongside knowledge of the movement as a whole. But even if coined by Wikipedia, there's no denying that it's become the common name: you can find probably dozens of articles referring to the "Prince Philip Movement" (usually, but not always, with the uppercase 'M'), including ones written before his passing. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• So far, I think we are leaning towards Prince Philip movement (lowercase 'm'). Wikipedia has a stronger preference for lowercase than some publications do. Any thoughts on Prince Philip religious movement, Prince Philip religion, Prince Philip religious sect or Prince Philip sect? — BarrelProof (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  My preference is for capital "M". I think lowercase looks sloppy. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect you might get your knuckles rapped by the MoS zealots. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, well, I'd get my knuckles rapped by the civility zealots if I said what I thought about the MoS zealots. DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• My two cents are that I don't see the need to move a page unless we are sure it needs to be moved. We aren't even sure that any other name is ever used, let alone that there is another name that is used more commonly than this one. So we don't even need to get into what is the more offensive or correct terminology to use. Furthermore, with the recent passing of the Late Prince Philip, I suspect that this page should stay as it is permanently. Skb7 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  But Wikipedia has a house style, and the guideline (at MOS:CAPS) says "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization" and that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." If the sources to do not consistently use the name "Prince Philip Movement" (with a capital 'M') as a proper name, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. The fact that we can find a few sources that do that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should do it. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The French version of this article is already titled "Culte du prince Philip". Peter Ormond (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  And the German one is Prinz-Philip-Bewegung. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC) But German does tend to like upper case letters...

• Relisting comment: To avoid short circuiting discussion about other move destination. Interestingly, nobody has technically !voted. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support lowercase to Prince Philip movement. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support lowercase to Prince Philip movement. Unless something better comes along. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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