Talk:Reginarids

"Reginarids"?

Trying to find sources for that word & coming up with nothing. The recent page move should be reversed back unless the name can be reliably sourced. The House of Reginar is a well know term. "Reginarids" not so, it seems. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You have a point: I think the spelling could better have been Regnarids, without the "i". Try googling that and you will find that it is a published name, so following "reliable sources" more closely. I would say "House of" is something from amateur genealogy webpages, and I find it a bit more the style of a romantic paperback? (I am a genealogist also, and I have certainly used the term, so I am not trying to be nasty. It is just that we should pick the best name for Wikipedia.) Mostly in academic publications, in English, French, Dutch and German, they are simply called the Reginars, Regniers, Reiniers etc, in other words just one of the variants of the name with a plural. But I do think there is an argument for using an abstracted noun form (-id), rather than just a plural, if it exists, as it does. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that. I see Reginarid is actually more common. You clearly should have done a quick google before doing all this tagging and stuff? Just saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

All what tagging? 1 = all this? No need for personal reprimands. Post a reliable source and all is fine! Appropriately, whomever moves a page from an established name, without discussion, could be reprimanded, if anyone, not the guy asking for a source or two. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I am one of those Wikipedians who believes that before placing a tag, some type of effort should be made to check quickly. The reason is that articles are often not edited or watched a lot, and so tags accumulate. (Right now, these articles are being worked on sporadically, but otherwise...) Furthermore, I think that footnotes in the first line are supposed to be avoided unless there is a real controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree that any user who sees something that needs a source is obligated to find one rather that applying a tag where the source is needed. Often, users with more knowledge of a subject will have a source readily at hand when they see that a cite tag has been added to an article they know well. Has happened to me many times. I'm not here to reprimand anyone or argue in a personal or sarcastic manner about the actions of others. Like any article talk page, this page is supposed to be used for us to cooperate in good faith to improve the article, not to find personal fault with each other. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The best way to work is that if you have a doubt, you first do any quick checks or fixes that you can do yourself. The other editors on Wikipedia do not work FOR you. If you want to wikilawyer about your "right" to post a tag that's fine, but don't complain if that is not seen by others as ideal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"House of Brabant"?

@Srnec: I am going to make a shocking claim that Burkes is not a good source for most subjects, but especially medieval genealogy. OTOH, maybe we do not need to debate that because perhaps we will agree anyway that the "House of Brabant" is a branch only of the Reginars? If so then simply saying that it means the same seems imperfect? Can we not reword that somehow? Also, I think what we should include as alternative names are some of the common academic ones which are simply plurals such as "also called the Regniers, Reiniers, Reginars etc"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing what basis there could be for trashing Burke's? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is fairly widely agreed by genealogists who actually work in the area of medieval genealogy. It is just a fact that Burkes is full of wrong information. It is not peer reviewed research, but an institution selling a dream. I can't remember a case of them ever discovering anything themselves, they just keep a rough score. (So in WP terms they are basically a tertiary source, like WP.) But also, when a connection is uncertain or indeed when new research changes minds, this is a problem for them, given their particular priorities. Obviously I realize it has a certain image and status, which is indeed what it is all about, and that makes it awkward to ignore given the way many people interpret WP:RS. (I'd have to go find published criticisms of Burkes, but even then people will say that this is not enough.) It is the kind of RS discussion which could really go in circles, and that is why I would prefer to walk around it by finding better sources and common positions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting practical again, please note that the quote from Burkes is not actually saying that "The House of Brabant" is a name for the Reginars. It is saying something I agree with, which is that they descend from them. To put it another way, Reginar I Longneck is a Reginar, but not a member of the House of Brabant. Brabant was not important and maybe not even under their control, for quite some time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In all due respect yes, I asked, I think, for a reliable source to cite that Burke's should be trashed as a source here. I'm already aware of your opinion. My opinion, after doing research since 1965, is that Burke's is unusually reliable. But our opinions are irrelevant without reliable sources to back them up. As for "genealogists who actually work in the area of medieval genealogy" I'm aware of reliable ones (very very few, being as the work is practically impossible) and of hundreds if not thousands of money-making bluffs. Users who actually are interested in finding better sources and common positions (your words) are to be appreciated. They can begin by (1) not moving pages from long established names without discussion and (2) not removing long established terms from articles with neither cite tag nor discussion. I'm sure you agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PS I can add that Moritz was a personal friend of mine, a dear man whom I really miss. If someone would have tried to tell him that he and the Brabants did not descend from Gilbert I, they would have had a very funny look out of a pair of big blue eyes. He knew very clearly who his ancestors were, and weren't, and any falsification would have been severely frowned upon. This is also irrelevant, but a piece of trivia I thought you might enjoy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Serge I am not here to jump through hoops for people. You can google criticisms of Burkes, and you'll find many. It is not necessary here because of the point I already made: the citation you found does not say what you claim that it says. And of course this makes sense. Not all Reginars are in the house of Brabant. For example, Gilbert Duke of Lorraine and his son, and Reginar IV and his line (in Hainaut), are not even ancestors of the Dukes of Branbant but they are certainly Reginars. Just as the term Reginarid does not apply to every male line ancestor or descendant or cousin of a Reginarid, the House of Brabant does not include every male line descendant, ancestor or cousin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Without further talk, this name has now been removed once again, including 2 good sources for it. POV about the sources has been given as a reason, but that reasoning is unsound since the sources cited give this name as the name of the family from which Frederick I of Sweden and others descend name. The name should not be removed. If it is to be mentioned (in the lede of course, as famous as it is) as a "a branch descended from the Reginars" that goes against these sources and must be well soucred as alternative information. Reinstating name & sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting in different talk page sections? The way I understand the discussion stopped and brought no references, as requested, which match your claim. I waited a very decent amount of time I think? (So please do not make accusations about me not using the talk page.) To repeat what I apparently did not explain clearly: the sources you have brought so far are sources which confirm there is such a thing as the House of Brabant. This is something no-one is disputing. It is the name of the most famous family descended from the early Regnarids. What you have not been able to find so far is any source which shows that this term means the SAME as "Reginarid" etc. If you can not find a source, then this claim needs to be removed. As far as I can see it is just a misunderstanding coming from you, possibly based on genealogy websites, and not from Burkes or any other book. But if I am wrong just bring sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The Burke's source is clearly quoted in the footnote as giving the same name for the founder of both houses, and the book on Frederick I of Sweden says the same thing. Page numbers are given in the refs. Whatever else is claimed here is conjecture, not fact. This I am removing dubious source tag. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So you would say that Count Gilbert (mentioned in the Burkes quote) is also a member of the House of Percy and the House of Hesse? And are all the people in the main Reginar line which ended early in Hainaut actually part of the "House of Brabant" even though those are not their descendants but a junior line that did not exist yet when their line ended? In fact, I suppose you would say that the early counts of Hainaut are also members of the House of Percy and Hesse? If you would not say these things, which indeed would sound ridiculous, then you should be able to understand that you are twisting the quotes. It is obvious that according to normal English usage and normal genealogical terminology being able to trace to back someone does not lead automatically to that the ancestor being referred to as being IN the descendant family in all such complex and long term cases. Do you honestly disagree? Please think it through. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say nothing. It's what the reliable sources say that counts here. If there's a reliable source that states that the House of Brabant does not descend from Gilbert I as the Reginars do, then than can be added, by all means. The sources that are in there about the House of Brabant state that Gilbert is the founder of the Brabants. Nowhere in the text has anyone added that the founder is a member of anything. What I object to is the removal, over and over, of well-sourced information. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Now you are being misleading about the edits, talk page discussions and sources, pretending not to understand. You are also refusing to answer straightforward and relevant questions which would lead to a resolution if you answered them honestly. It means you are refusing to engage in good-faith discussion. The facts:

• You know you have not at all found a source for the information you keep adding. The information you keep adding, what your edits inform readers of, is that "House of Brabant" is a name for the title of this article (the Reginars, Reginarids etc). Your edits tell readers that all members the set "Reginars" can be referred to as being in the "House of Brabant", and apparently you know this is not true or you would not post answers like this. But to give one more chance, please name one source which says this.
• No one has proposed anything about making the article say who they did "not descend from". Do you think twisting people's words is that easy to get away with? Please give a decent good faith answer if you really think that House of Brabant needs to be an alternative name for the article subject in the first line. Otherwise it will be removed because if you don't start showing good faith now it is clear the talk page discussion is going nowhere. Also I suggest before posting your next edit read WP:LISTEN and WP:TEND and try not to fit the description (See 2.8, 2.11).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If anyone at all is able to ask me a brief specific question or two about the alternative name "House of Brabant" as related to this article's name I will be glad to anser it/them as well as I can, but only if the aim clearly is to improve this article not to argue repetitiously, at length and in an exceedingly personalized manner with me or anyone else. I am a firm believer in our important guideline Comment on content, not on the contributor, and when it seems impossible to follow it. I am at a loss to continue. I will not do that.

The sources cited clearly show that the Brabant name is equal to the article name in every way that seems important, so the Brabant name, which is very well known in this context, should not be removed again from the lede, from the article and from Wikipedia entirely. It would be OK to add an explanation about any opposing view, well-sourced, without removing the name. I have as yet seen nothing to confirm to me that the Brabant name is not considered synonymous with the Reginar name in enough reliable sources for it to be included prominently here. That issue should be able to be discussed constructively, that is, without being personalized to this extent, but with little or no good faith assumed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it would not be ok for us to make up a story about opposing views. We have no sources for any such debate. As to your double negative demand for sources which show that a published source says something is not called something, that would be WP:TEND 2.7 . All my comments have been about your edits and the arguments you have chosen to place here in public discussion. The only person who is trying to make ad hominem arguments and avoid the real point is you. The real point, to remind once again, is simply that if you can't find sources which positively and clearly state that "the Brabant name is considered synonymous with the Reginar name", then this claim or anything implying it should be and will be removed. That is how Wikipedia works. The sources you have brought talk only about shared ancestry and as I demonstrated above with the questions you would not answer, this is not the same as being in the same dynasty is it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

To confirm: I understand that there is no reliable source available which says that "the Brabant name is considered synonymous with the Reginar name". Therefore it should be removed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources that are valid are still being removed arbitrarily without constructive discussion. Simply denying that what's clearly in a cited souce actually is there, is not a constructive discussion. We do not remove such sources just because they support a view we don't like or because citations are not in English. I will keep reinstating these valid sources as long as the dicussion is conducted like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What? Of course source in other languages are allowed. You are deliberately distorting again. The Swedish source is ONLY being cited to say what a term is in English. It is mind-numbingly obvious that we can not cite a source using terms in another language in order to prove what that a term exists in English! You are being silly. Should we perhaps add a French source to the Trompe-l'œil article to prove that "Trick the eye" is a term in English also????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

WP guideline: Comment on content, not on the contributor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. By posting that guideline as a false accusation against an editor whose questions you do not want to discuss, you are breaking it. Anyway, do you have a reliable source which says that House of Brabant is synonymous with Reginarid? I think you do not, right? But you have a chance to give a clear answer. Until now you've given website sources which come from Wikipedia, you've given sources which say things no one disagrees with but do not say you want, and you've given a Swedish source for English terminology. So it really looks like your claim that there was "200 years" of "English literature" to cite was based on a misunderstanding, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We disagree - please give others a chance to opine here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Others? These others might be somehow connected to the hundreds of years of English literature you also said I should wait for? Please check the dates. Your edit summary even says "too rushed"! LOL. Are you honestly saying my edits have been fast and you've had no chance to find sources? You only ever edit or post anything after I wait a week and then start again. You had your chance and you found nothing because there is nothing. This is nonsense. You are not actually editing or using this talk page properly, only wikilawyering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We need help here. I am not able to discuss this constructively because of all the personal admonishment, scolding and ridicule. Eventually, someone neutral will look at the relevant and reliable sources I provided, which keep being removed, and assess them rationaly. This edit war has turned me off. It isn't constructive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

From what I read from this discussion, I'm going to have to side with SergeWoodzing because it appears that Andrew Lancaster's notion that Burkes isn't a reliable source is based on his own opinion. ("I think this is fairly widely agreed by genealogists..." Which genealogists? "It is just a fact that Burkes is full of wrong information." According to whom?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And when Burke's statements are clearly seconded (in my 2nd ref) by the only respected biographer of the only king this dynasty has had, that would seem convincing too.

As it stands now (after all the reverts and my giving up), House of Brabant redirects to an article where that name for the dynasty isn't even mentioned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe a more relevant question for this article is whether Burkes says that "House of Brabant" is a term for the Regnarids. Certainly the quote cited so far does not say this, and therefore this source can not be used for that statement. If Burkes ever becomes relevant we can go look for feedback about its strengths and weaknesses as a source, in the context of whatever concern might arise. But that was never the situation concerning the citation in the first line.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Burke's ("The house of Brabant can be traced with certainty to Giselbert, Count in the Maasgau in 841 ... Giselbert's son [was] Reginar [I] (d 915) ... ") and the Swedish biographer ("The House of Brabant belonged to the very oldest families in Europe ... the founder of the house, Gilbert, Count of the Maasgau"), as quoted in both citations which keep getting deleted, both say that the House of Brabant is as old and and has the same founder as the Reginarids. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No Burkes does not say that, obviously, even according to the quote you keep giving. Can be traced to. It means they have the same ancestor. That's it. Nothing there about how old they are or who "founded" them. Because they were never founded of course, because these are terms (two different ones) invented in modern times, not things that existed in those times. Surely you realize this. The Swedish source is irrelevant because not in English (whereas this is about English terminology) and even less clear (apparently being poetic about "old families" which is not a clear term, but probably meaning a traceable male line), apart from not being a specialized source about this subject. It is in any case obvious that according to your definition, which you can not source, the counts of Hainaut in the 10th and 11th century were part of the House of Brabant. No one writes that way. To take another example, people do say that William the conquerors English descendants were in the Norman dynasty, but they do not say that his ancestors were in the English dynasty. The direction is of time important, obviously. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can arrive at your interpretations of these quotes, and I think we'll have to leave if either at that, or try an RfC.

To try to be constructive anyway: how would you like to mention the House of Brabant in the lede of this article? I'm sure, if we try, we can find a compormise wording, rather that quashing the name altogether. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly it depends on what sources we can find. The ones you have found so far all refer to the House of Brabant in a way which I read as referring to the Louvain/Brabant branch, ie the line descending from the first member of the family who was lord of Brabant, as opposed to Brussels or Leuven. I am not exactly sure where these authors would start it (perhaps Henry III) but perhaps a wording can be found which avoids that problem and simply lists this line as one of the parts of the greater family?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ulwencreutz's The Royal Families in Europe V

Is the above not simply someone's book made out of re-arranged Wikipedia excerpts? See WP:Circular--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what it looks like to me. If it were I wouldn't have cited it. These facts have been around for a long time before Wikipedia. Like 1100 years or so? German and French geneaologists have published them very reliably for the last 200-300 or so. Back then, publishing fake info got you in big trouble with powerful people whose families you tried to mess with. Not like now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please at least do a basic check first before demanding other people work for you? The sections are obviously word-for-word copy/paste from WP articles. The Reginar chapter is just an earlier version of this article. (Have a look at the Reuter source and the exact footnotes, which in this article are still left over from an old version. Otherwise, just try another chapter so you can compare to another article which has been edited less lately.) The internet is full of such things, so this is something experienced WP editors should look for automatically. Just try the next chapter about the "House of Reuss" for example. Word-for-word. Even if it was not a WP copy, it still obviously looks like someone's self-publication, and that should be ringing alarm bells at a first glance. I already looked a few times earlier by the way and all websites I could find referring to the "House of Reginar" were derived in some way or another from Wikipedia or genealogy websites.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop arguing in a personal manner and making exaggerated accusations! I haven't demanded anything. That's not what these pages are for. We're supposed to discuss article content, not each other . Hard to discuss this with you rationally when one of the sources you've cited yourself called this the House of Reginar. If you believe that family name has not been used at all in respectable English literature (for at least 200 years?), you may want to try to remove it again. I will oppose you on that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just prove it. Indeed no problem. The link you posted is the same one again though, and not something I cited. If I cited something bad though, that could be a mistake. But I have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly. I am sure the source you've cited and everything I could find is crap though I'm afraid. Please don't blame me for that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to blame anyone for anything. That's not what article talk pages are for. I just reacted to the fact that a source cited for one name was deemed unacceptable for another. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It is obviously unacceptable. I have explained to you that the source which is still in the article is actually copied from Wikipedia. So it should be removed. You say that you know lots of other sources from 200 years? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Controvery as to who belongs and who does not

I suggest anyone with good basic knowledge of this subject, and reliable sources to back it up, add a section to the article about which male decendants of Gilbert, Count of the Maasgau belong to this family and which do not. Seems to be a great deal of confusion, when people who always have thought they belonged to the House of Brabant as descended from Gilbert, are to be told by English Wikipedians thay they do not. If legitimate male descent no longer is to be considered membership in certain families or branches thereof, that too is a good thing to bring up and clarify, well sourced, in this article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take your spiderman costume off and just simply find a source for these lots of people who think that House of Brabant means the same as Reginarid (as opposed to being a related and over-lapping concept). This is what you are asked and such a request is normal and should be responded to. As you know, the evidence presented so far indicates that you are the one using Wikipedia as a mistaken source (indirectly, and perhaps unaware of it). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, to get the old Wikipedia joke you might need this link: WP:SPIDEY. Please take it as light-hearted humour.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your ridicule and sarcasm are not appreciated or constructive at all and will hardly make anyone feel helpful. Turns me off very badly. I avoid users and discussions like that. Comment on the article not on other users. Please! Your comment in this new section is not only inappropriately personal, it also is completely irrelevant to what the section is for, i.e. improving the article when it comes to who belongs to what families. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't ridicule and sarcasm, avoiding talking about the sourcing you do not have, the only reason for starting this talk page section? Please see your own opening post and reflect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Previous article name "House of Reginar"

From August of 2009 until this week this article's name was House of Reginar. After the move to its current name (to which I do not object) the previous name was removed from the lede, then reinstated, and there has been some controversy on this page as to the family's alternative names known to English literature, i.e. whether or not they should be (1) mentioned at all and (2) given in the lede. Does anyone know why the article was called "House of Reginar" for 8½ years and how that name, which I think should be mentioned, can be better sourced than it apparently is now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think on subjects like this there are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia which have been started by enthusiasts with an amateur interest in genealogy or similar. I don't think knowing this helps us decide what to do. I think what would help is you supplying references to the "English literature" you mention. My impression is that the term comes mostly from the least research-oriented style of genealogy websites. "House of" terminology is of course used for later English medieval families like the Nevilles and Percys in reasonably serious works, but the Reginars are a different type of subject, from a much earlier period. We also do not for example say the "House of Merovech", the "House of Pippin", the "House of Charlemagne", the "House of Otto" or the "House of Rollo" do we? I guess what has got enthusiastic genealogists using this terminology is that this particular family has English descendants like the Percys. But that is just a guess. Best that we talk about real sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

House of Percy

The article puts in parenthesis (until 1610) however there is no interruption of house Percy at that time. Is this a claim in connection to a few Percy's starting to make their way to the American Colonies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.217.123.227 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)