Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 4

4 February 2015

Order of the Crown of Georgia

Order of the Crown of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

in the discussion hold for the delation of the previous page in 2012, the two people which wrote in the discussion debate just said the Order is a fake one, along with the Dynasty which awards it, which meant the article of the Order had to be deleted. When I wrote this article yesterday I did not know about the existence of the previous page, but once I saw the arguments used in 2012, I filled the page with more sources, such as the one of an important newspaper in Spain called La Razón were they mention the Order as an official one of the Royal House, or the page dedicated to the currently bestowed Dynastic Orders which are awarded with official recognition from States, such as this one is by Georgia. Georgia recognised the historical rights of the Bagration Family and this gives its Head the Fons Honorum required to create Orders. They did so in 2009 and created the Order of the Crown of Georgia. A part from Georgia`s official recognition (even ex Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili was awarded, officially, one of the Dynastical Orders), the Orthodox Church of Georgia recognised the Dynasty's status and the Orders conferred by them. Proof of it is that the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Georgia received the Dynastic Orders of the House of Bagration. Also international religious figures received the Order, such as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem or Serbia. Another proof of the recognition of the Dynasty in Georgia is that they appear in the news as the House of Bagration, as these two video show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly47cxPnYgc. Finally, the Royal House website and heraldry blogs show themain information available from the Order, as happens with most of the world Orders: the issuing insotitution published the decrees of creation of the orders. While there is evidence the Order (very young one though) exists far from the website and the heraldry blogs, as proved in the page sources, the article should not be deleted. In fact, if there is something to highlight as a controversy, it should be posted in the page, but people who search for it should be able to have information about it in Wikipedia. Link to the page in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexeinikolayevichromanov/Sandbox#Sources Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Allow recreation: In addition to the sources cited above, the particular Royal House is listed on pages 1847 - 1849 in "Burke's World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" (ISBN 0971196672) by Guy Stair Sainty and Rafe Heydel Mankoo, albeit in reference to the Order of the Eagle of Georgia. Note: I was the creator of the original article that was deleted and didn't see the AFD in time to comment.--Kimon^talk 23:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• What does listing there imply? (Not a rhetorical question: I really wonder. I am unfamiliar with the book.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I deleted the article and salted it, as having been "repeatedly" re-created. Actually it had been re-created just once, so it's clear that I overreacted. (I think the article reminded me of a different contributor's much earlier, energetic campaign to create articles about a fictitious Maltese aristocracy.) It's also clear that I overreacted if we compare the article deleted previously to the one that I deleted yesterday: yes, they are indeed different. If any admin wishes to speedily end this DELREV and copy Alexeinikolayevichromanov's draft back into article-space, no objection from me. -- Hoary (talk) (who continues immediately below) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC) ... PS slight and pedantic elaboration: I mean that strictly speaking it may have been improper to delete this in the way that I deleted it; and any admin who thinks that the deletion was indeed improper is welcome to restore it, and won't get an objection from me. However, I still believe that it merits deletion, via one route or another: see my "Leave deleted" "!vote" immediately below. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Leave deleted. That said, the new draft hardly seems to address the objections raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Crown of Georgia. To quote User:Ravenswing's nomination there: Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and various heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. The draft cites one page that looks as if it might be substantial: this one from La Razón. But this is primarily about the (non-) event of the conferring of the award -- not in Georgia, but instead in Valencia. Two people received it: Davit Magrazde and Nicoloz Shengelaia (both currently redlinked). And who were present? Al acto asistieron numerosas personalidades, como Andrés Salvador de Habsburgo y Lorena, Archiduque de Austria, la Duquesa de Monte Alegre, Alfredo Escudero, José María Boluda y Fernando Musoles y Martínez-Curt: not a Georgian-sounding name among them. Looking in en:WP for this and similar orders, I see that the few noted recipients include Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram, described as "one of the claimants to the throne of the Sultanate of Sulu" (the sultanate of Sulu [remember the name] having disappeared in 1915), and seemingly a collector of bogus-sounding titles that somehow get Wikipedia articles. The main source for Alexeinikolayevichromanov's draft is royalhouseofgeorgia.ge, which whois tells us is registered to "Davit Bagrationi Mukhran-Batonishvili" -- a fellow who, WP tells us, is a recipient of the Royal and Hashemite Order of the Pearl, itself described as the dynastic Order [sourced to a page at blogspot.co.uk] of the Royal House of Sulu (yes, Sulu), and who I suppose is the same as David Bagration of Mukhrani, whose article describes him as the pretender. All in all, this "order" -- together with Order of Queen Tamara and Order of the Eagle of Georgia -- seems an insignificant vanity project by a person who imagines himself king of Georgia (a republic, whose president and head of state is Giorgi Margvelashvili). -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding what user Hoary said, these two situations shall not be mixed, I mean, the Sultan of Sulu has its pretentions, justified by some, and denied by some others, just as happens with Prince David of Bagration, whose legitimacy was even declared by Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia in 2007. If we deleted all the articles which create controversies on these matters, many of them would not be in wikipedia. User Hoary mentions that no Georgian names were amongst the illustrous people present at the act in Valencia, but the act was not in Georgia but in Spain. When the acts take part in Georgia, national personalities assist there. But the main point which took me to write the article (I did not even know it had been previously written and I was surprised to see, two minutes later(!) of its publication, the speedy deletion tag on it) is that I looked for a place with all the information regarding the Order to be together, as Wikipedia usually contains in its articles information from many sources, and I couldn't find it. The article may help people looking for a sumarized text, in English, describing the order. Those that consider it is not legitimate would be welcomed to write it in the article, with a title such as ==Controversies==, for exemple. But I really think it should be recreated as it provides information in English when the main sources are either in Georgian or in Spanish. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: I don't have much to add to my previous comments or to Hoary's excellent summation. I'm rather surprised that Kimon thinks that a passing mention in a bit about another order constitutes a source supporting notability, which it doesn't. I'm also not impressed by Alexeinikolayevichromanov's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, or by his unsupported claim that other qualifying sources exist in other languages. If he'd like to create an article on the Georgian Wikipedia, bless his heart, but we need sources we can verify. (As it is, with David Bagration not being considered notable enough for an article on the Georgian Wikipedia, I don't hold out a lot of hope for faux chivalric orders this self-proclaimed "king" invents.) Ravenswing 01:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: It is curious to see Ravenswing affirming in a quite superbly way the Order is faux with no sources from official institutions echoing what he affirms as an absolute truth. It is not the argument "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" but the acceptation of a reality which is that the order exists and that, contrarily to what he says, Prince David Bagration of Mukhrani has its own WP article in georgian (https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%93%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%97_%E1%83%91%E1%83%90%E1%83%92%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C-%E1%83%9B%E1%83%A3%E1%83%AE%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%94%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98). Kimon does not only mention another Order but a point favoring the legitimacy of the Dynasty, that is, as we can see in the discussions, the main point to be treated, as a legitimate Dynasty would have the required fons honorum which allows it to create Orders. In this case, not only in the book mentioned, but also in other social situations as the one I mentioned from Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia or of the one mentioned in the video (from the Georgian News!!), treating Prince David as a recognised national royal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly47cxPnYgc. My claim on the other languages is due to that many of the people who contribute to the restauration of the Georgian monarchy are from Spain and thus, most part of the news, a part from those coming from the royal house website, are written in Spanish. But going back to the discussion about the House website, just to highlight a fact: would you, then, consider fake all the news from all the royal houses who have posted them in a website? Why not to consider valid the news and iformation coming from the Bagration website and to consider valid those coming from the http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/ website, which includes the Dynastic Orders of San Gennaro and the Constantinian order of Saint George, for exemple? Both are non ruling heads of houses, recognised heads of houses, and thus, their situations are not as different. And I state that this is used as an exemple for you to answer, not as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: I've no reason to dispute that in the "reality" that Mr. Bagration has in his own head, this "order" is real, yes. What I do dispute, as I did two years ago, is that reliable media sources have given the subject the "significant coverage" required by the GNG to sustain an article. And that's the point -- not however many YouTube clips featuere Bagration (YouTube being, of course, not considered a reliable source). I strongly suggest that you review the links given at WP:PILLAR, so that you get a better understanding as to the particulars of Wikipedia notability guidelines and policies. Among them, you'll find that while we can accept primary sources for purposes of verification of fact in an article (asserting, for instance, that Bagration does claim to be rightful King of Georgia and that he issues awards he calls the "Order of the Crown of Georgia"), but they cannot be used to sustain the notability of a subject.

  Beyond that -- and beyond that this article was just a glorified WP:NFT violation -- let's take a look at the seven sources Alexeinikolayevichromanov cites in his sandbox. One is to Bagration's website: non-qualifying. One is to a blog: non-qualifying. The La Razon site is a casual mention. Ordenskreuz.com is the website for an "International Committee for Orders of Knighthood," which claims the right to certify or ignore knightly orders; we can safely relegate this self-appointed outfit, which lacks a Wikipedia article itself, to the "not reliable" bin. The final three cites link to docelinajes.org, or the "Twelve Lineages of Soria," which appears to be the vanity site of a self-appointed "Council of Bloodlines of Soria." Ravenswing 03:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reply:First of all, just to clarify it: the Doce Linajes de Soria is a very old institution in Castile. You can check the WP article on it in Spanish or French: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Doce_Linajes_de_Soria. It is composed of reputated members of Castilian Nobility (not fake titles, only those that are official in Spain). Thus, I would think on considering the information they provide genuine and reliable. You will find multiple sources supporting the Doce Linajes institution. This "self appointed Council of Bloodlines of Soria" is recognised by the Spanish Crown, and by the municipality of Soria, where they meet and whose Mayor is a Member of Honor of the Corporation. Link: http://www.hidalgosdeespana.com/canales/servicios/img/lagacetilla/pdf/536.pdf. On the other hand, considering "non reliable" an institution such as the International Committee for Orders of Knighthood just because it lacks of article in Wikipedia, is not, from my point of view, enough sustented. As you ask for sources to every single movement or pretention from the House of Bagration, I would say you should publish here sources which state the non reliability of the institution. Just for us to see it. Same happens with the point you stated calling the Order of the Crown of Georgia a fake one and thus, not worth to be on wikipedia. Finally the "casual" mention in La Razón is casual because the envent was focused on the Order of the Eagle, not on the Order of the Crown, although they mentioned it because two people were awarded it. I really do not want the page to be unexistent while there is people who may be interested on knowing more about it. We have proveded sources whose reliability is not sufficient for you but also some others whose reliability is considered true by the sources rules in WP. I like the option settled by Hoary of allowing the page with a distinct cathegorisation. This would be a medium point between total deletion and total recognition of the Order as a fully Georgian one. As this debate aims to create a consensus, I would agree on this medium point. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Kindly don't put words in my mouth. The comment to which you were replying stated explicitly -- and I'll repeat in case you missed it -- "What I do dispute, as I did two years ago, is that reliable media sources have given the subject the "significant coverage" required by the GNG to sustain an article." A great many fakes and hoaxes have nonetheless secured enough mainstream, significant coverage to meet the GNG's requirements. And that's why I asked you to review some of the pertinent guidelines, because you persist in missing the point: it doesn't matter how significant the coverage is if a source is unreliable, and it doesn't matter how reliable the source is if the coverage is fleeting or nonexistent. I'm well aware, for instance, that the La Razon article was about the Order of the Eagle and only mentioned the Order of the Crown in passing; that's exactly why the piece doesn't qualify towards meeting the GNG (and why I haven't sought nor would support deletion for the Eagle's article, because while it's as equally a faux order, I do believe that's received enough coverage to meet the GNG). As far as a compromise goes, no. There is no middle ground here. Either the subject has enough reliable sources to satisfy the GNG or it does not. In the former case, an article can be sustained. In the latter case, it can't. Side issues such as whether the head of the Georgian Orthodox church recognizes the Bagrations' claim to the throne or whether the Bagrations have the right to recreate orders are not the point and never have been.

  And as far as your challenge goes, I understand that you're unfamiliar with how the pertinent guidelines and policies work, but it is not up to an editor who advocates deletion to prove that reliable sources don't exist; it's up to editors who advocate keeping an article to prove that they do. Ravenswing 10:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. It does indeed seem that Ilia II wants Georgia to be a monarchy and the man who is handing out these 'orders" to be the monarch. (If we can believe the WP article about Ilia II, he has a variety of remarkable opinions, notably He described homosexuality as a disease and compared it to drug addiction.) But here's a fact: Even if a return to (or an invention of) such a monarchy were majority opinion in Georgia (a republic), there is no monarchy, and the person giving out these orders has (if I understand correctly) no higher status than any other Georgian. Now, this in itself doesn't affect Wikipedia-style notability. (Although it might affect such matters as categorization. I'd suggest not "Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Georgia (country)" but instead something like "Category:Quasi-national orders, decorations, and medals", or "Category:Family orders, decorations, and medals".) Where is the Wikipedia-style notability? This gets a mention in a popular Spanish newspaper, and it may or may not be listed in one book; is there anything else? ¶ User:Alexeinikolayevichromanov asks Why not to consider valid the news and iformation coming from the Bagration website? We don't consider it a reliable source, because this is merely the private website of the person who has invented (or whose father has invented) the "order". He further asks why we take seriously stuff that's on realcasadiborbone.it. We do? I've no idea why. The website solemnly tells us Welcome to the official website of the Royal House of Bourbon Two Sicilies, the dynasty which ruled over southern Italy from 1734 to 1861. / The current head of the Royal House is His Royal Highness Prince Charles of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro..., but that particular royalty disappeared in 1861, Italy did away with its monarchy decades ago, and I can only infer that the word "Royal" is mere fantasy. If realcasadiborbone.it were the issue here, I'd dismiss it as a purveyor of fiction, but it isn't the issue here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I would agree with what Hoary said about using a specific cathegorization, as it is not, that is true, a National Order. We could create the cathegories he said or even the Category:Dynastic orders, decorations and medals. Always if this means that the page and info contained in it is reaccepted. Alexeinikolayevichromanov (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted- The original discussion could not have been closed any other way, and nothing has come to light since then that would justify undeleting. Reyk _YO! 10:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul Randles (closed)

I am surprised by the lack of understanding about certain key chivalric concepts.... many dynastic orders exist and are conferred by a genealogically accepted (proven, or contested) heirs to a royal houses . Some of these now private affiliations, but are, indeed, very ancient and highly respected, but have lost state sanction or have even been outlawed in certain jurisdictions, which is not the case for the Order of the Eagle of Georgia (but is for other orders like St. Mauurice and St. Lazarus which has its Wiki website). Wiki has many web-pages dedicated to orders that have much less support than the OEG..(e.g. St. Lazarus) Now it is clear, for these numerous House orders, there is no sovereign statutory certification body that can make binding decisions about their chivalric authenticity. Legitimacy is largely a matter of acceptance within the chivalric community--and even, reductio ad absurdem, by the holders of the orders alone... To be sure, several private peer-review bodies including Burkes Peerage, the Augustan Society, and, the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC) are now generally trusted. And, by the way, the ICOC does have a web site so I'm not sure about the confusion by one of the editors in who seemingly, mistakenly, refers to the International Commission on the orders of Knighthood [which doesn't exist].. To be sure, none of these entities has, nor claims to be a final authority in these matters. In fact the Augustan Society carefully points out that it neither certifies Chivalric validity nor refutes the claims of orders not in its lineup. As noted, the ICOC makes similar claims about its lists being fluid and open to reinterpretation.

The lack of a formal sanctioning body makes the issue of chivalric legitimacy tricky for the many house orders that are no longer governed by sovereign state or papal statute. For these, credibility rests on whether or not they have a valid fons hornorum, or, arguably are a patriarchal decoration....another fascinating field of inquiry. Ravenswing might look into this concept. Nearly all scholars in the field agree that the heads of formerly regnant houses, by right of blood (jure sanguinis), can confer (jus honorum) inherited household orders moto proprio as an inviolable family prerogative. Prominent Italian Jurist, and president of chamber of the Italian Republic’ highest court of appeal the Corte Suprema di Cassazione expressed the idea of heritable sovereignty this way:

“Sovereignty is a perpetual quality, indelibly linked and united in the centuries to all the offspring of one who first achieved or claimed and is realized in the person of the Head of Name and Arms of Dynasty. . . “

Other scholars would go so far as to say that non-regnant heads of even contested households, especially those who did not abdicate (Prince Davis's branch) can do what they want and even create new orders. all these points are debatable, But it is clear that the order of the Eagle of Georgia, is far more than that which Prince David or "Mr. Bagration" as one of the poorly informed editors puts it, "has in his head." Even a casual student of Georgian History knows that he is a valid pretender...and probably the leading pretender....he is not a fantasy Royal as a one wiki editor suggests. A good scholarly debate can be had here, but not on this level of casting David M. as a self-styled Prince....