":I'm sorry if I haven't been clear enough in explaining my reasoning. Judging from your response, it seems like you don't really understand what I'm trying to say. 

 :I am not suggesting that we should use incorrect terminology because many people use the wrong terminology. 

 :My claim is that the English language definition of the word ""royal"" does not mean ""must be descended from god."" I am arguing that the term royal is accurate and is entirely consistent with the Al-Sabah family, as described by you and Michael Herb. 

 :My disagreement with you is on English language definitions, not Islamic culture. 

 :Your explanations about Islamic cultural norms include the implicit assumption that the word ""royal"" includes ""descended from god"" as part of its definition. If, as I assert, that isn't an integral part of the definition, then it calling the Al-Sabah's the ""Kuwaiti Royal Family"" does not go against cultural norms at all. 

 :It is also important to be aware of your audience. Wikipedia is not a place for formal academic papers. When I am writing a paper in my field, computer science, I write using the formal terminology of the field. The audience of the paper is formal academia. When I am writing for a non-academic audience, I will use different terminology. I will avoid words that we have re-defined or defined especially narrowly, since I know that those definitions are only meaningful within the appropriate context. 

 :Wikipedia is supposed to be written in standard English. Correctness and accuracy are supposed to be achieved using language that is understandable by people who are not academics in the field of the article. 

 :From what I understand of your statements, your portion of the academic community has taken the standard English language definition for the word ""royal"" and added an additional requirement, ""descended from god."" 

 :Think through the implications of your idea: You're going to write your text with, in your mind, certain definitions for your words. However, since your audience, while educated, is not a part of your academic field, they'll think the words you're using mean something else. You're saying that this is clearer and more accurate? That's ridiculous. Clarity and accuracy come from the reader and writer using the same definitions for words. 

 :Your more formal and more accurate word re-definitions are, I'm sure, useful and valuable when you are discussing this topic within academic circles. Wikipedia is not one of those circles. 

 :I hope this at least makes my position clearer. I would sincerely appreciate it if you could stop trying to portray me as somehow being anti-intellectual or anti-academia. I consider accuracy and correctness to be very important. I value academic research and input. It is unreasonable for you to assume that I have disagreed with you because I have ignored your reasoning. I have carefully read through and considered your reasoning before I have disagreed with it.   

 "