Talk:Anthony Bailey (PR advisor)

Lady Bailey

There seems to be an edit war going on here with respect to the appropriate title usage for Sir Anthony Bailey's wife. Can everyone stop please and use the talk page to discuss the correct form. Thank you. Oinky (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Sir" from title

Moved article from Sir Anthony Bailey to Anthony Bailey (campaigner) per WP:OBE. Wikipedia does not generally preface article titles with "Sir"; while there are exceptions, a mere OBE isn't enough. John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What about the info box one? Is that special, and is the "his Excellency" kosher? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Which of the abbrevations of orders ought to be included in the leading section, and on what grounds, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace have ordered Bailey "to stop giving impression of being a British knight".

Further confirmation to the above https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2547848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.26.78 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The subject of the article has been stripped of the style of Sir and more, notably by 78.145.26.78 (talk · contribs), in explicit reference ot this source: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2547848 ("Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom."). The user seem to imply that there is a consensus that what applies in the United Kingdom in that regard should apply in the article. When did that consensus form, please? Furthermore, what about the Eminence style? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new 2nd para in respect of UK press coverage. In the circumstances, and with Bailey being British, it is misleading to have the first para begin with "Sir", as our users are likely to reasonably infer that he has a British knighthood, which is not the case. So, I will alter that accordingly. If anyone would like to reinstate, please seek consensus here first, or "Sir" will be removed again. Edwardx (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. The London Gazette of 1 June 2016 reported from Buckingham Palace " Notice is hereby given that, in line with the long-established convention concerning foreign titles, British nationals who have been awarded an honour by another country may not use any associated title, that the award might bestow, in the United Kingdom. Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom." (see here). I am removing 'Sir' from the lead and will report any reinstatement to WP administrators.--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. Bailey is not an Antiguan national, as confirmed by the government of that country. (http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Another-Caribbean-diplomatic-passport-raises-questions-30653.html) Therefore, his knighthood is a purely honorary one entirely, as is his Grenadan one. As a result, I suggest the section of page called "Titles" is also modified to fit this. Further, Her Majesty's Passport Office in the UK are reissuing Bailey's passport without his title. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625651/Baroness-Scotland-bought-Commonwealth-job-utterly-corrupt-process.html) CaribbeanTruth (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support If the London Gazette is not a reliable source in this case then I don't know what is.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new 2nd para in respect of UK press coverage. In the circumstances, and with Bailey being British, it is misleading to have the first para begin with "Sir", as our users are likely to reasonably infer that he has a British knighthood, which is not the case. So, I will alter that accordingly. If anyone would like to reinstate, please seek consensus here first, or "Sir" will be removed again. Edwardx (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. The London Gazette of 1 June 2016 reported from Buckingham Palace " Notice is hereby given that, in line with the long-established convention concerning foreign titles, British nationals who have been awarded an honour by another country may not use any associated title, that the award might bestow, in the United Kingdom. Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom." (see here). I am removing 'Sir' from the lead and will report any reinstatement to WP administrators.--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. Bailey is not an Antiguan national, as confirmed by the government of that country. (http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Another-Caribbean-diplomatic-passport-raises-questions-30653.html) Therefore, his knighthood is a purely honorary one entirely, as is his Grenadan one. As a result, I suggest the section of page called "Titles" is also modified to fit this. Further, Her Majesty's Passport Office in the UK are reissuing Bailey's passport without his title. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625651/Baroness-Scotland-bought-Commonwealth-job-utterly-corrupt-process.html) CaribbeanTruth (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support If the London Gazette is not a reliable source in this case then I don't know what is.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose There is no question that the subjects knighthood is legitimate and correctly bestowed. As Bailey is a national of several nations it is perfectly correct to include the title 'Sir' on the page and to use the relevant post nominals to distinguish from a UK or for that matter any other realm kngithhoods but to include a reference to that fact that in the UK such use of title is not formally allowed. I am also concerned thatlinks I have made to published letters from the Queens office at Buckingham Palace confirming the subjects various awards are not being accepted as proof of the award when surely they should be much like the London Gazette considered of primarly source. I would propose that these be reinstated as surely what applies in the United Kingdom now only has part relevance to the global reach of the article. It is also important to note from various published sources that the Mail on Sunday articles are subject to legal action and I would have throught that wikipedia should not until the matter is resolved be guided by the contested articles. For the record I am not Anthony Bailey or have even met him! [[User:Cultre759|Culture759Culture759 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)]

Indeed. I notice also that still noone is able to explain why presentation of such titles on the English-medium Wikipedia articles ought to follow national rules applied in the United Kingdom? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Because he is a British citizen primarily and is based in the United Kingdom. He is not an Antiguan national, and as an Irish citizen the Constitution and government does not recognise any titles. The government of Ireland merely gives permission for awards to be accepted, but do not allow it in things such as identity documents or government certificates. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Support as per https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2547848 Kiltpin (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anthony Bailey (campaigner). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110929183946/http://www.waterford-news.ie/news/cwqlkfidau/ to http://www.waterford-news.ie/news/cwqlkfidau/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930143354/http://www.paintingandpatronage.org.uk/ to http://www.paintingandpatronage.org.uk
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090331023340/http://fpc.org.uk:80/staff/anthony.bailey.obe/ to http://fpc.org.uk/staff/anthony.bailey.obe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Bailey (campaigner). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120206024623/http://www.papalknights.org.uk/assoc-members.html to http://www.papalknights.org.uk/assoc-members.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Bailey (campaigner). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706091130/http://www.austriantimes.at/news/Panorama/2007-10-29/1413/Blairs%20PR%20man%20bags%20a%20princess to http://www.austriantimes.at/news/Panorama/2007-10-29/1413/Blairs%20PR%20man%20bags%20a%20princess

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Bailey (campaigner). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paintingandpatronage.org.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Bailey (campaigner). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928180842/http://www.paintingandpatronage.org/ to http://www.paintingandpatronage.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Distinctions

A large number of distinctions claimed in the article are without appropriate citations according to WP:LIVE and have been flagged as such. I propose to delete those that re not appropriately substantiated by the end of June 2016.--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Too much of the content of this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Edwardx (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support I'm also worried about the re-emergence of post nominals in the intro which were previously removed. Every day it seems a new one reappears. Also, it's quite clear alot of the sources for the content is from Bailey's own website, one citation even led to an admin login for his site. All those edits were made by Culture759, who I'm convinced is Bailey or someone on his behalf. The photo is also listed as Culture's "personal work." Could someone look into that, or prevent them from editing this page? CaribbeanTruth (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support On reviewing this article, it's difficult to see much genuine notability here. But there is some, so I don't suggest deletion as the answer. It does appear that someone has been filling the page with incestuous trivialities. All these third-rate titles can go, except insofar as they have become the subject of third-party comment. The unreferenced stuff all needs to go. That won't leave much of the current article. Hunc (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Object National Honours are hardly third-rate titles. I sourced from the web confirmation letters signed by the queen's office at buckingham palace and this can hardly be considered unsourced even if the letters are downloadable from the subjects website. I notice a good deal of recent commentary on the above article some of which is being made by a number of one time wikipedia users. Accordingly to caribbean media The Mail on Sunday artciles are subject to legal action and I believe all contributors need to be careful when editing this article. I am not the subject of the article, have not met him, but interested in the subject. Culture759 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Culture759, please read WP:THREAT and guard your language when posting. "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Users who do so are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding." Editors are perfectly entitled to edit this article according to WP standards. The Buckingham Palace letters you refer to, being available only from Bailey's own site, are not acceptable as WP sources. Such sources should be secondary (i.e. accessibly referred to by reliable non-connected parties). See WP:V and WP:SPS. By the way, if you are indeed nothing to do with Mr. Bailey, I should be fascinated to learn how you got access to the letters from Buckingham Palace which you uploaded as would-be citations from Bailey's site, (see here), but which appear to be only available to that site's administrators (as evidenced by the internet address beginning http://www.anthonybailey.org/wp-login.php)......--Smerus (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Culture759 if you have indeed never met him, how did you take the photo of him on the subject's page that you list as your own work? (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthonybaileyspeaker1.jpg) CaribbeanTruth (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The user has, as far as I can see, not mentioned any legal actions against Wikipedia, but rather legitimately proposed the controversial nature of the main publication used as source for the recent editing of this article. Also, in any case, according to the rules on Wikipedia: on this talk page, please consider keeping the subject of this discussion to the article in question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Object per Culture759. I totally agree with him! Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed several inadequately-supported mentions of various awards. Some have been, correctly, put back with better references, thanks. However, it seems that we are in some cases relying on scans of official letters available only on the subject's own website. I suggest, as do others above, that this is not sufficient. These awards should again be deleted until truly independent verification can be produced. And, while I assume that the OBE is also genuine, it also needs an appropriate source. The Catholic Herald article really isn't sufficient - it would have been normal for the journalist to have simply taken the subject's word for it. These things are officially gazetted - we need to show exactly where. Hunc (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Hunc - if we can't find independent verifications, then awards should not be listed. WP:BLP is clear on this, the essential elements are No Original Research and Verifiability.--Smerus (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Revival of the Order

@Hunc: Your source says that a delegation of the order was revived. Not that the order itself was. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the sentence in the source really is confusingly written: "All three men who were knighted were, along with Baroness Scotland, part of a delegation from an ancient Catholic order, The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, which was revived ten years ago by Bailey, who also styles himself ‘His Excellency’." Nevertheless, the order was revived. Not the delegation. Hunc (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any other credible source on that statement other than Daily Mail? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A source is a source. Do you have third-party source which says otherwise? If so, you can add to the article accordingly. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not justification for removal.--Smerus (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review the contued discussion on "revival" further down the page. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability questionable

Anthony Bailey is a PR consultant in England, in the UK (although he would like to claim that either he doesn't actually live in the UK either at all, or at least for UK tax purposes he is not actually "domiciled"), behind the scenes. The article and others associated articles ("Lady Bailey" and the Constantinian Order) are probably all written by himself (as a PR man, whilst pretending they were edited by someone else when it was in fact not the case—that is after all what a PR man is supposed to do, even if it is unethical!) He hasn't really come into notability until about two articles written about him, one on the Mail on Sunday (also reproduced on the Daily Mail Online) on the 28th. May 2016, and one on the "Private Eye" magazine (the Notice on the London [Government] Gazette does not even mention him by name), and even then it probably falls under WP:1E. All the affected articles should really be deleted, and if Bailey is still considered important enough, then an article should be resurrected, but his notability only really started on May 28, and not before. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, there are plenty of sources other than the ones you mentioned. Furthermore, the contents of the article speak for themselves in terms of notability. If you cannot weight that in, I suppose visiting more associated articles would do, in order to get a more clear picture of the context. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things are now clear. First, this article has enough reliable sources to establish at least a limited degree of notability. That does include the controversy over the listing of shiny honorific sticky badges, but we may legitimately debate whether it's worth keeping the list of sticky badges themselves, so lovingly inserted by Culture759. Second, Culture759 clearly has a serious conflict of interest in this article and others. Indeed, looking at certain related articles, starting with his wife and the Constantinian Order, I strongly suspect a small sockfarm at work.

I'd like to suggest that the sticky badges can be kept, where reliable sources are given (and no, your own website doesn't count for this purpose. But that of the Republic of Vulgaria probably does, for a Vulgarian award.) This on the grounds that an encyclopedic article on a narcissist can reasonably include evidence of narcissism.

I hope that Culture759 and any other editors closely related to the subject of this article will read, carefully consider, and act upon the guidelines on conflict of interest, before making any more contributions. Hunc (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask us to consider our posts based on the Wikipedia rules sourrounding articles on living people. I suppose we are here discussing how to make the article better, and that is well enough a subject for a talk page on Wikipedia, to the best of my understanding of its principles. As for distinctions on biographical articles, I have seen no reference to changed consensus in that regard differing from the existing one - which non-controversely does include them. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources and notability

Thanks to Smerus for recent edits / additions. One point, the identity and connections of his wife, relies on the site of a amateur enthusiast, Miroslav Marek. Another point, his son's name , relies on a paid notice in the Irish Times. I would suggest that both of these may well be true, but the amateur website isn't reliable for our purposes, and a paid notice isn't reliable and doesn't indicate notability. I suggest that these points should go or be supported by genuinely reliable third-party comment. Hunc (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally am prepared to WP:AGF in these particular instances. The inclusion of this imformation was supported by two other independent editors in the relevant AFD discussion concerning Mrs. Bailey .If the subject of this article is indeed WP:NOTABLE (and I leave it to others to consider that issue) then this information is relevant--Smerus (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it unless anyone else has an opinion. Hunc (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Name of the page

The designation "campaigner" does not really encapsulate the subject's main activity. In fact it seems to be a peacock word. Reliable sources make clear that he is a public relations practitioner and unless anyone can come up with some better idea, I propose to rename the page to "Anthony Bailey (public relations practitioner)". I'll leave this a bit to allow comments. Hunc (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support this; it is after all his profession, and his actions in this respect correspond with the WP article Public relations. The campaigning he undertakes is not clearly defined in the sources, nor is it his full-time activity. I just wonder if the proposed title is not too clunky - cf in WP John Underwood (PR adviser) which seems a bit neater.--Smerus (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Anthony Bailey (PR adviser) seems good. Hunc (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that the title should be changed. "Anthony Bailey (PR advisor)" would be even better. A quick Google search for PR adviser gets 1.2 million, but PR advisor gets 40.1 million. Edwardx (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As no one objected, I have been bold and moved the article. Edwardx (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George - revival?

"In the 1990s, Bailey revived the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George." - this is patently untrue and nonsense. 1- The Order was functioning quite happily without him and did not need reviving, 2- Only the Pope can revive the Order (if it goes into abeyance in the first place). I tried to correct this to 'received' instead of revived, but was reverted as The Daily Mail says he revived it. I believe that the DM report is bad copy editing and grammar and that is how the misunderstanding occurred. Could we please have a few more eyes on this and get a consensus to changing it. Kiltpin (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After a little more research - thanks to the contributors on the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George - you seem to be half right. I suspect that Bailey may have been involved in the revival, not so much of the Order, but of the claims of another branch of the family that "owns" the Order to the titles and whatnot. He, and they, appear to have set up their own organization in competition with the longstanding one. As there is no external authority over the Order, or for that matter over the princely titles - they're not recognized or regulated by the Pope or by anyone else - nobody is in a position to tell him or his personal "prince" to stop it. Now, that's my interpretation, but the source definitely says "revived". I doubt it's an editing error, I presume this goes back to a claim by someone associated with this "revival", but we are forbidden here from indulging in this sort of original research. I'd be pleased if you could find a reliable source that tells us more accurately what's going on. For the moment we should stick with what we've got. Hunc (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

How is anybody supposed to find reliable sources for an event that never happened? I can't prove a negative, can you? Kiltpin (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The current state of this article is incorrect. Wikipedia is full of recipents of this order well before the subject of the article supposedly "revived" the order. I have tried to point this out a couple of times by attempting to change the sentence or fill in a template asking for a better sourcing, but one or more editors keep hanging on to this factoid. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As I explain in the next section, "revival" is clearly, er, something of a gloss, but it's what our source (and, I suspect, someone associated with the subject of the article) has been presenting. Feel free to find better sourcing. I'd love to see it. (This also applies to anyone associated with the subject of the article - check the guidelines on conflict of interest, but if you want to present a version of events, it would be perfectly appropriate to do so on this talk page. If you can provide reliable third-party sources, we may well be able to include it in the article. You may feel that we're out to get you, but truly we're not. We are here to present a neutral article according to Wikipedia guidelines.) Hunc (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What one available sourced says according to one biographical article should not override what hundreds or thousands of other biographical articles and sources implicate - namely that this order existed, operated and was distributed en masse well before the article's subject came on the scene. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, what form of words would you suggest? Rather than "revived", what about "was instrumental in setting up the Delegation for Great Britain and Ireland of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, under Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro and in competition with the longstanding version of that order under Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria." Hunc (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Taking the Daily Mail as Gospel truth should be avoided by Wikipedians!

A quick study of the history of Bailey's UK and Irish Delegation (www.constantinian.org.uk) shows a long line of previous delegates and vice delegates and members in both countries going back over 200 years. Its planly wrong to suggest he revived the order as it is a global body headquartered in Italy and whose decorations are recognised by numerous foreign states and first and formost the Italian Republic which is relevant here as it is a order which was headquartered there and given by the former neopolitan royal family whilst in power and in exile.

I feel very uncomfortable about the taking anything the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday says as gospel truth. Its a well known taboid that runs these types of stories and I think that fact that no other UK newspaper has carried this story speaks for itself. We should all be a bit cauious as this is a newspaper that is famous for twisting the truth. Interesting to see that the paper already had to issue an correction on one of the stories stating that Bailey had doctored a statement from British PM Cameron which the paper has confirmed was untrue. All the other stories are also subject to a legal complains too so we should be careful and follow thwe rules.

There are also a number of edits made by wikipedians who are clearly only interested in this story and whilst their contributions should be noted they should also be studied carefully and check they follow the rules. Some certainly are not and seem like mud racking and character attack which given the nature of the real focus of some of the stories being Baroness Scotland are clearly politically inspired. 193.24.32.51 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with 193.24.32.51. The revival nonsense is just that - nonsense. It is this kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. What was obviously meant was that he received the Order, not he revived the Order. They make a typo and we look like fools. Kiltpin (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Order isn't a thing to be "received", though its baubles may be. He seems to have set up a branch of the Order substantially under his own control, on the authority of a dubious claimant to a "princedom" which has long since lost external validation. See Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George and some of the (unfortunately even less reliable than the Daily Mail) links therein. I speculate that he may have presented this to the Daily Mail or their source as "reviving" the order, but we'd need better sources to put it into the article. Your speculation seems to lack any sources and doesn't make sense. Hunc (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it lacks sources - you can't prove a negative. "doesn't make sense", are you truly not understanding? Well, we will just have to wait. It will not be long before this whole sorry farrago comes crashing down. Kiltpin (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have never before seen a Wikipedia article where one source gives such privilege of describing something perifery to the article's subject as in this case, provided the source is incorrect given available sources throughout the rest of Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick study of the history section of the UK delegation website shows that Bailey wasnt even a member of the Order in the 1990s let alone able to revive a Order which is global and which has had according to the history of the Order in Britain and Ireland has had members since 1700s. Suggest this reference is amended or removed. 87.103.14.40 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"Revived" is what the source says... it does seem to be a euphemism for setting up a new and separate version of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George under the "authority" of an alternative claimant to an extinct princedom. Advice would be welcome: does Bailey's rejection by the pre-existing version of the Order suffice to let us say that he has set up his own organization,rather than "revive" anything? Hunc (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not an euphenism - for anything. Are you seriously suggesting that anybody can reject a pre-existing version of an order (that they are not a member of) and then set up their own organization (with the same name)? If that is the case, I think I will set up another Order of the Garter - I always did like the hats! Now that you agree that "revive" does not mean what you first thought it meant, I agree wholeheartedly with 87.103.14.40 "Suggest this reference is amended or removed." Personally, I would prefer, removed. Kiltpin (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's try again. If you were to set up your own version of the Order of the Garter you'd get some very serious people calling on you to tell you that you really can't do that. And if you persist, there'd be people in uniforms telling you the same thing, and then someone in a wig, and then more people with big bunches of keys telling you the same thing only more so. However, the title of "prince of Ruritania" is not supported or regulated by any actual secular power; if it had ever existed, it would be a sort of zombie title and so would its orders of nobility and whatnot. In other words, if you find a descendant of the old princely house of, say, Ruritania, and you find that he's a claimant to the princedom, there's nothing at all to stop you working with him to set up another branch of every Order of nobility ever supported by the Princes of Ruritania, even if there's another claimant and even if he's already organized his own Orders. Nobody with the power to stop you actually cares enough to do so.

I really do recommend studying the page on the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. And the pages of the version of the Order associated with Andrew Bailey, under Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro, and of the main competing claimants under Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria. I don't feel the need to disentangle their various claims to castles in the air, or their necrotic histories, nor do I wish to disparage whatever good works they may do, but it is very clear that there are at least two versions of the Order, and the subject of this article is up to his chins in one of them. Now, we are using the word "revive", per a source which I suspect goes back to Bailey himself, to describe his involvement with one branch. I have yet to find a reliable source that says explicitly what I think happened, namely that Bailey worked with, or on, Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro, to set up a competing version of the Order in the 1990s. But until we have a more illuminating reliable source, or consensus that some form of words such as "set up a competing version of the Order" is reasonable, we will do well to stick with "revive". I hope this makes things a little clearer. Hunc (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

At this diff [1] I have, I hope, come up with a text that we can all agree with. Thanks for the positive feedback so far. Hunc (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, better. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 12:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

There appears on this page a lot of single interest posts by CaribbeanTruth (talk) who may well have a conflict of interest. There appears little balance to his edits and these should be treated with caution. Hie should Use this page to talk through proposed changes rather than what appears the railroading of his views which affect the balance of the article and which don't seem to have community consensus . In what relates to 1995 allegations this surely is not relevant and we should follow the rules of Wikipedia in this regard which were clear enough.85.247.218.174 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to 85.247.218.174. You wouldn't, by any chance, be connected with Anthony Bailey? I invite you to review our policy on conflict of interest and make any declarations that may be required. If you do wish to suggest any substantive changes to the article, please remember to tell us which specific Wikipedia rule you may have in mind. Hunc (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of other fellow Wikipedians. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP address geolocates to Sintra, Portugal, where according to Private Eye the subject of this article has a house and from where other edits to this article have been made. (The Private Eye report is what attracted me, and, I guess, certain other editors, to this article.) This IP's contributions appear to display a certain focusing of interest.

I repeat my call for the IP to review our policy on conflict of interest and make any declarations that may be required. I also repeat my call to provide on this talk page any further information that may actually be useful to this article. Hunc (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In either case, the user is hardly violating Wikipedia. Please feel free to welcome new users who wish to improve its articles. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony Bailey (PR advisor). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130721235021/http://www.kozlonyok.hu:80/nkonline/MKPDF/hiteles/MK13062.pdf to http://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/MKPDF/hiteles/MK13062.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526062438/http://www.catholicherald.co.uk:80/life/cl0000113.shtml to http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/life/cl0000113.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Orders again

I have reinstated at this edit [2] some details about the various versions of the Constantinian Order, which clarify the points discussed at length above. Their absence can only cause renewed confusion. I ask the IPs from Mexico City, Israel, and Sintra - or any other associates of the subject of the article - to refrain from removing important and referenced points. I also remind all editors of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. Hunc (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday

This article is sourcing in many cases the Mail on Sunday a well known tabloid newspaper which is not considered by editors to be a reliable source. For reasons of WP. BLPSTYLE, WP. NOT RELIABLE and WP. ALIVE and NPOV, I feel this article needs to be reviewed and maybe updated and amended accordingly 163.166.150.56 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday is legally and editorially a separate company to the MailOnline and the Daily Mail, the new policy on unreliable sources does clearly not apply CaribbeanTruth (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The references are directed at MailonLine and Wikipedia is clear on this. I agree with (talk) and suggest that alternative sources are found or the article should be amended by editors accordingly or the references removed. I too find no reference to the divorce of the couple and I believe this should be removed until something else is found. Are such records not public? Can anyone advise?

It seems CaribbeanTruth and have a very close interest in or to the subject and appears and in two cases seem to be single issue interest editors. Editors need to be aware of this and from what I see there is a lack of objectivity in some of the entries and a significant sourcing to Mail OnLine and far to much unnecessary clutter in the paragraphs which is just not appropriate for the subject himself. I am proposing that 1. we remove all references to the Mail on Line which cannot be sourced elsewhere, remove with immediate effect the references to the divorce and to reduce the overkill paragraphs on the Constantinian Order or the balance sheets of little known companies. My feeling too is to bring greater neutrality to the article.163.166.150.56 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing to remove most of the notable points about this individual. I appreciate that the subject would probably like a lot of them removed - the article is significantly different to its state when he was a main contributor - but we are here to provide a neutral account of what's been said about him, not necessarily just the image that he may wish to present. Hunc (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Painting and Patronage

I have amended the article to remove the references that this initiative or cultural programme is dissolved. The website clearly shows its part of the Saudi Royal Court and whilst in the UK its activities have concluded the initiative is clearly still active with high profile royal as its head. 163.166.150.56 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

So it would seem from the organization's own website. However, the UK company of the same name has been dissolved. In view of the disagreement over this point, I've included both as fact in the article. I hope that everyone is happy with that solution. If anything is to be deleted I'd suggest that we don't really need to make any comment either on the non-notable UK company or on its dissolution. But the programme itself probably does achieve low-grade notability. Hunc (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Further CoI edits

At this edit we have another edit which seems to be made by the subject of the article or someone very close to him. Not only physically close - it geolocates to near his holiday home in Portugal - but it removes specifically the items that the subject might most wish to see removed, in close harmony with other probable CoI edits, see discussion above. I have reverted it, taking the opportunity to do a tiny bit of tidying. To the problematic editor(s), please bear in mind that CoI editing may not be obvious to you, but it will be to un-involved editors. Hunc (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

400,000 people live in Sintra. My proposed Amendments are valid and in line with Wikipedia and General Ecyclopedia requirements. It would seem you are the one with some relationship with the subject looking at the history of your many amendments and I am tiding up an article to make it clear and relevant. What is the evidence I am close to the subject? I have none unlike you. So please cease your unhelpful comments and understand what Wikipedia is and what it wishes to uphold namely the integrity of Wikipedia.. Hunc (talk) 2001:8A0:7BCD:A201:41EE:7C54:DDAB:C168 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the "anon" IP meant to ping you, @Hunc:, rather than linking to your userpage. Anon IP, your edits would seem to indicate a possible CoI and removal of referenced material is vandalism. Hunc's edits are fully in accordance with WP policies. In addition, per BLP, unreferenced material may be removed. There is nothing in the article to indicate that subject is Irish, so that will be deleted. Category:Irish Roman Catholics - as with all BLPs - should not be added unless the subject is notable because of their membership of that religion. See WP:BLPCAT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the amount of CoI editing on this page I suggest it's time to limit editing to autoconfirmed accounts. Does anyone think it's not a good idea to take this to WP:ANI? Hunc (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I object to your proposal. It is your edits that are being questioned here and corrected to keep in line with Wikipedia rules. 2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no COL . There are plenty of online sources referring to Baileys Irish nationality. You might wish to view them. As to my amendments to the article they are in relation to maintaining Wikipedia's guidelines in terms of neutrality of articles and that this is a living person and that Wikipedia should not be using discredited sourcing such as the mail gossip newspapers. Therefore i have attempted to maintain the encyclopaedic nature of the site. A lot is mere gossip and is not relevant on a site such as this. Additionally the continued removal to the subjects Antiguan diplomatic role and his Antiguan Knighthood is hardly vandalism but rather includes in the article an significant aspect to the subject which has been widely reported on. The references to the disputed constantinian order are well documented and in the same way that they are not mentioned on the Wikipedia pages associated with the other leading figures of this organisation they should be removed and edited to follow with Wikipedia rules but with the necessary links made to the dispute if needed. +

Given the amount of CoI editing on this page I suggest it's time to limit editing to autoconfirmed accounts. Does anyone think it's not a good idea to take this to WP:ANI? Hunc (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

− So please can you cease vandalising the article and my amendments and either outline specifically your concerns about each line of the various texts edited or removed2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC).