Talk:Kigeli V Ndahindurwa

Untitled

Doesn't this page's name kinda interfere with the standard naming for articles on monarchs? -Alex, 74.133.188.197 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

• Has the king been back to Rwanda since 1961?Tommypowell 13:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of fake awards and orders

The section "Awards and non-hereditary orders and titles" is largely rubbish. There are ten "orders" listed. Of those, five have no Wiki associated with them, and a simple Google search (redacting "Kigeli") returns essentially no hits ("Royal Order of Ismail" -- 5 hits, "Cross of São Tomé" -- 5 hits, "Order of the Tunic of Our Lord Jesus" -- 4 hits, "Brotherhood of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Noble City" -- 3 hits, etc.) These are fake "orders", supposedly issued by "royal houses" that haven't existed for decades, if not centuries. This is list-cruft of the first order (no pun intended). Consequently, I'm removing those four nonexistent "orders" and I would like to see primary, reliable, third-party sources for the claims of the other six, or they too will face removal. Bricology (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Kigeli's website as a source

We need to treat Kigeli's website with a deal of caution, and generally not use it as a source (for a whole host of reasons). However, I have used it to confirm that Jean-Baptiste was his baptism name, rather than his birth name. That seems a pretty uncontentious point, and one that's unlikely to have been spun, as well as one that's supported by how his more-written-about elder half-brother's name was handled (born Rudahigwa, became Mutara III Rudahigwa on ascension, took the Christian praenomen Charles Léon Pierre). Bromley86 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Height

Not sure this should be in (although it is in his brothers's article) so I haven't added it. Still, 7'2" is pretty tall. It seems that, even if the Tutsi=tall belief is a myth, the royal family was tall (his maternal grandmother was over 6' tall.[1]

Anyway, support for the 7'2":[2][3] Bromley86 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias

The article suggests that the president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry criticized the King's award of titles in the European style based on a third party source: an Economist article. However, on the Internet there is a primary source account of the president's position, which is that he gave guidance to the king on the manner in which to issue these titles, that he states that 'the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and to grant these honors is useful to help His people' and he says that he considers the titles issued in the European style 'as awards (political orders) created ex-novo in the exile of the king'. These are direct quotes from the source. [4] Without the addition of these quotes for balance, the article remains biased. So, either these quotes should be added in (which have been removed by Bromley86), or the initial claim that the president criticizes the awards should be removed. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not beat around the bush here. This article is currently massively misreporting the situation ("Essex TV had become the first media organization to be granted permission to film Kigeli during a UK visit", not mentioning the extremely salient fact that he is penniless and living on welfare, etc.). Let's not make it worse by adding in old primary stuff that's superseded by a later secondary source. Bromley86 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is beating about the bush. You avoid actually engaging with the evidence and dismiss it on the basis that some other information is missing from the article. This is an argument for the inclusion of further information, not its removal. You do not address in your remarks at all the specific issue of bias created by the wording: 'Although criticised by the President/Chairman of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry for issuing titles in the European style,[24] (but not for issuing orders considered as awarding systems)'.

Not only is this messy, but also it is problematic, because not only did Pier Felice degli Uberti advise King Kigeli on the formulation of the European titles (the primary evidence you refuse to include confirms this), but he also commented on King Kigeli V's right to issue them to aid his people and also categorised them in terms of status. Your omission of this information creates clear bias, as the existing quote suggests the titles have no legitimacy and that this comment stems from Pier Felici degli Uberti in his capacity as president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry. This is problematic for the reasons given in the source I added and you removed, as Pier Felice Degli Uberti confirms the following in a later post:-

'You are confusing ICOC with my personal advice to the King.

ICOC never dealt with nobiliary titles and this is not its duty, please read

at www.icocregister.org or better:

http://www.icocregister.org/authority.htm

http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm

ICOC studies only chivalric orders, self-styled chivalric orders, award

systems, noble corporations, other nobiliary bodies or ecclesiastical

decorations inside Europe or the European tradition (ie Brazil).

At the moment what is out of the European tradition is not argument of study

of ICOC.'[5]

Basically, what he is saying is that his comments about King Kigeli V's titles remain his personal opinion, not those of the ICOC, as the ICOC's remit is Europe. He further advises that its focus is chivalric orders, not noble titles. Indeed, consulting the principles of the ICOC register confirms that were Africa within the jurisdiction of ICOC, then under its third principle, King Kigeli V's awards would be recognised, based on this wording:

'It is generally admitted by jurists that such ex-sovereigns who have not abdicated have positions different from those of pretenders and that in their lifetime they retain their full rights as “fons honorum” in respect even of those Orders of which they remain Grand Masters which would be classed, otherwise, as State and Merit Orders.'

King Kigeli V was forced off his throne and never abdicated, so in his lifetime - according to ICOC's principles, he retains his full rights as a fons honorum.

I propose the following amendments, which I will make now:

Firstly, an addition to the article: 'Owing to the circumstances created by forced exile, as at September 28th 2013 it was reported that King Kigeli V was living in social housing and was dependent on handouts.[6]'

Secondly, a correction and clarification about Pier Felice degli Uberti, produced in a neutral style.

'Primary evidence from 2007 indicates that Pier Felice degli Uberti, president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry, acting in a private capacity counselled King Kigeli V on a manner of formulating European-styled noble titles, which he acknowledged his right to do and its value in aiding his people.[7] However, later, in 2013 he criticized the issue of these titles.[8] His comments of 2007 make clear that his views are personal and that both noble titles and traditions outside Europe do not fall within the jurisdiction of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry.[9] King Kigeli V meets with the conditions of the third principle of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry, in being an ex-sovereign, who retains their full rights as a fons honorum in their lifetime as they did not abdicate their position.[10] The comments relate only to the issue of European-styled noble titles, not to King Kigeli V's issue of Orders of a Chivalric nature.'

This addresses your comments in full and provides a neutral and complete summary of the position. Whether all this information is relevant in this article is questionable, but - for this article to be neutral - all this information needs to appear, or otherwise the clause Although criticised by the President/Chairman of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry for issuing titles in the European style,[24] (but not for issuing orders considered as awarding systems)' needs to be removed. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, this seems pretty clear to me. We have a current, reliable, secondary source that states an individual's position. We attribute the opinion to the person, not the organisation. It is not necessary for the article to probe further into that.

You're right though, there's too much WP:OR. After the revert, I'll address that. Bromley86 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The most recent edits made and reversions have left the article less accurate than before. It gives the impression of rash edits made in temper and they have in result given the article greater bias. There is no source for the view that King Kigeli V is not recognised by the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry. As my last post stated, the president of this body says that Rwanda is out of its remit. So to say it does not recognise his awards when it would not do so according to its own remit is disingenuous and reveals a deliberate attempt to introduce bias into the article and this does not meet WP:OR requirements, as it constitutes original research.

Also, these references to awards being made in exchange for cash are not born out in the source. The source DOES NOT state that Kigeli 'issues orders and titles of nobility in exchange for money'. It says that they are issued to donors or to people who provide services to him, not purchasers. Even the Economist was careful not to state that the titles were awarded in exchange for cash, even though it mentions cash was paid. You are taking the content to a new level, constituting an issue in terms of WP:OR.

Furthermore the fact that you have no familiarity with (or ready access to) the content of the work, Burke's Peerage's World Order of Knighthood and Merit attests to you lack of specialist knowledge on this particular issue. If you have an axe to grind, this is not the place to perform it. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)