Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mobile historian (talk | contribs) at 18:00, 16 November 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Reliable Source

Can [1] be considered a reliable source for calling someone a Prince? See Talk:Rita_Jenrette#European_Titles for some context. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be improper for me, the compiler of the site www.chivalricorders.org, to answer in the affirmative since any "self-publication" on the internet is apparently to be dismissed as worthless, whomsoever is the author. I have attempted, without wishing to blow my own trumpet, to state my credentials because in the face of the challenge over my assertions regarding the titles of the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family I had no choice. As yet there are no degree courses in the English speaking world on royalty or nobility; however, after some 40 years of publishing on this subject in numerous scholarly and specialist magazines and reviews, as well as being a member of the Royal Academy of Heraldry and Genealogy in Madrid, having published three books on Orders of knighthood and numerous other articles on the subject, and been widely consulted on these issues I do believe that I can legitimately assert my exspertise in these matters. Particularly since I have a considerable library on the subject on which I am able to draw, which includes just about every work of any merit published on Euriopean nobility in the last 200 years.


Project name

Despite the rename from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty → Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty almost two years ago, the main page still styles itself as the "Royalty and Nobility Work Group" of WikiProject Biography. Would there be any objection to moving it back as a subpage of WikiProject Biography?

Either way, can this project/work group be renamed "Royalty and Nobility" to more accurately reflect its scope? PC78 (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Earl of Clare

There's a dispute here that could use some fresh input from you folks. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you were requested to give fresh input on the Earl of Clare article, your banner of approval was placed on the version which contained my material on the medieval earls of clare. Ignoring your support and because of the persistence of three persons, the article was eventually reverted to its original incorrect form. I offered a compromise and a re-style with a paragraph including the fact that some modern authors dispute the medieval earls. It was ignored. It is a shame that people with no expertise in this subject can harass and manipulate seemingly for its own sake. It seems to becomes a game to a few individuals instead of a search for truth. I fear Wiki's reputation could eventually suffer if this practice is allowed to continue.Mugginsx (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 69.183.159.106 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Template:WPBiography

Please note that priority assessments for this project are now added by using the |royalty-priority= parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Please refer to Template:WPBiography/doc for full instructions on how to use the banner, or feel free to ask any questions on the banner's talk page. PC78 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: House of Laborde de Monpezat

Hi folks; there is a requested move discussion at Talk:House of Laborde de Monpezat#Move? that could benefit from the informed views that you may have. If a knowledgeable administrator or editor experienced with naming conventions would be willing to close the discussion, even better, but even just a little more discussion would be helpful. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the discussion has now been closed. -kotra (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

Howdy ya'll. Is there a possibility of getting this articles' title changed? Its current title is confusing, was he or wasn't he 'King of Croatia'. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's been changed to Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsitancy in Swedish monarchs named Gustav

The six monarch articles-in-question: Gustav I, Gustavus, Gustav III, Gustav IV, Gustaf V & Gustaf VI. Why can't we decide on one type names: Say 'Gustav' & 'Adolph'? GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Isn't the article name Prince Frederik of Hesse wrong? First, it should definitely be Frederick. Second, could it be "Frederick, Prince of Hesse"? Or "Frederick, Prince of Hesse-Kassel" (written by the paper encyclopedia I used as a reference). Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable nobility and hoaxes

There is currently an AfD for three hoax articles created by a kid from Lawrenceville School [2]. The kid has changed information at many other articles, but it was relatively easy to change it back. (Most of this was done by Bali ultimate.) Now here is problem #1:

  • Many of the articles changed by the hoaxter were completely unsourced. The only way a hoax can be removed from such an article is by reverting to a similarly dubious state.

Unfortunately this kind of hoax doesn't seem to be rare. I am sure I have heard of such things happening here before, and while making sure to clean up everything I found activity by another hoaxter in one of the articles affected by the first. To make such a hoax convincing, the hoaxter needs to inject incorrect information into existing articles. Which brings us to problem #2: We make it too easy for them. Here is why:

Is this the right place to ask for ideas how to address this problem? Hans Adler 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is to nuke all the unsourced claims and people. I know that what i was reverting was hoax info, but have no way of knowing without extensive personal research into a subject of no interest to me that what i reverted to was any better. There is zero verifiability on offer and that's unacceptable (leaving aside notability questions entirely).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what do we do about Template:Former monarchic orders of succession? It appears that all articles linked from that template are unsourced. One of them has had an unsourced template for a year with no success. I doubt that we can nuke them. The problem is that the people who like this kind of information (I hope to find some of them here) apparently can't be bothered to source it. Hans Adler 15:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the template appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims. I agree that an actual attempt to get rid of this crap would be opposed. My guess is some of that information is theoretically valid but most of it is not. How to tell which is which? There is no way.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are books about such things such as the Almanach de Gotha. There are also online sources that may or may not be reliable [3] [4]. But I am very thoroughly not interested in this stuff, so I am certainly not going to do the necessary verifying. My point is that some of those people who are interested need to do it. Hans Adler 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory we could and should use Almanach de Gotha and similar books. I do own copies of this type of book and if I work on an article I will cite from there instead of an online source, but really there is a big problem of non notable royals and because of that it does make it too easy to insert false information. I would say that the Online Gotha is a reliable online source and if an article is created on a royal and they are not listed on the website I would be very suspicious. A lot of articles do need to be improved with the Line of Succession articles it most probably could be sourced about succession laws used to govern the succession but with some of lists I would think its hard to say who is actually in the line of succession as with Thurn and Taxis I removed a load of people because I have sources saying they are born of morganatic marriages for example. - dwc lr (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese nobility redux

Good morning. Last year I was involved in XfDing a large heap of articles involving purported Maltese noble titles; the situation (which you can see a bit of in Archive 3) wound up in the permabanning of the original author, User:Tancarville, who claimed to be an expert in genealogy and sourced them all from his own original research. As some of you have seen, much of this has been recreated in two articles - Maltese nobility and Foreign titles of nobility in Malta - in staggering detail by User talk:Mobile historian, a relatively new user.

While I feel WP:UNDUE applies in thinking these articles need to be pared down by at least four-fold, I can see two enormous problems at first glance: that there are no inline citations, and that - ominously enough - almost every single external link and much of the sourcing comes from Tancarville's website. To quote myself from the earlier debate, "To wit: the only evidence we have for any of this is Charles Said-Vassallo's word for it, and this is the same guy who claims noble titles for himself and has created articles about himself and his family. I'm not quite calling Said-Vassallo a hoaxer (if so, he's an extraordinarily energetic one), but has anyone, anywhere down the line, verified his statements with reliable sources?" Neither then or subsequently did Tancarville (Said-Vassallo) or anyone else come up with reliable sources attesting to his self-proclaimed expertise in genealogy, and given that, I'm no more inclined now to take his website on faith. Most of the rest of the sourcing is cited as coming from works by a Charles Gauci, who himself was the subject of some of these articles as a "noble," and who showed up as User:Count Gauci as an SPA in one of the AfDs, with phrasings oddly similar to Tancarville's; for instance, "Please see sense and make comments rather then delete" cropped up in both of their comments at various stages. I lack confidence in both sources.

So ... while WP:AGF applies, of course, do we have sources verifiable by other Wikipedia editors?  RGTraynor  15:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to a sane state (notwithstanding that what i've reverted back to is likewise unsourced and original research, it's at least 1/10th the length, formatted tolerably and not obviously self-promotional).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you care enough, I would open up an SPI case immediately. I don't care enough, but he's fillign the encyclopedia with crap.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am appalled by your behaviour and language. Disgusting!!! I have made a request for arbitration and I have nothing else to add. Good bye. Mobile historian (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility&oldid=326193853"