Misplaced Pages

Sorry about that (nobodies asking for a page movement). In the content Pless (only) should be used, the Polish version need only be mention in the opening line. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the vote was regarding the Duchy naming, not the name of city itself which is Pszczyna.If Charles believes Pszczyna should be renamed to Pless on Misplaced Pages he is free to start the vote.--Molobo (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be so much simplier to have Pszczyna in the opening 'only'. Can't we leave Pszczyna where it belongs, in the Polish Misplaced Pages? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, you obviously don't understand that Psyczyna on EB, a SINGLE source, is about the city up to the present day and is hence given the present name. This article is about the past duchy and its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna). The form of the article was completely and totally fine but it is being mutilated in bits and pieces to include ridiculous phrasing like "princes of the duchy" and "dukes of the duchy". What are you trying to accomplish? Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The relating article Pszczyna is in Polish. This article's content is a continuing struggle between pro-English and pro-Foreign spelling editors. It's two conflicting agendas. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The relating article is writen in English, the name is English accepted version. If you believe another one exists you should start a Request to Move the article to its proper English name. What is the English name of Pszczyna rather then Pszczyna according to you ?--Molobo (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The English name for the capital of the duchy of Pless is Pless. This is not about present day Pszczyna. The duchy was called Pless because that was the name of the capital. Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna)". That's only partially correct. While true for probably more than half of its history, for the first few (two? four?) centuries the dominant language was Polish (and Latin), and hence the name was Pszczyna (or its latin variant, whatever it may be). Hence when speaking of the early history of the duchy, it's capital should be referred to as Pszczyna; when of latter, as Pless.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've no desire to move Pszczyna to Pless. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - Space Cadet & Molobo, do you both have to edit war over this article's content. By doing so, you're only creating the impression of disruptive editing. Get a consensus on this talk page for your changes, first. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its rather clear that Pszczyna shouldn't be named Pless-the Duchy is another issue. If Charles wants this name to be standard on Misplaced Pages, like I said, a move request should be issued in proper article.--Molobo (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just no more 'edit warring' please. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Time after time, this flawed argument is presented to push a point of view. Misplaced Pages is not consistent. The name of Pless now has no bearing one what it was called when the Duchy existed. This argument was also attempted with Cracow. Sorry, it does not work. Whether Pszczyna is at the right name or wrong name does not negate that "Duchy of Pless" and "Pless" are the right names for this article. Charles 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The name of the capital is not constant even in the context of the Duchy. It was not called 'Pless' until several centuries after the Duchy's creation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Charles but the Duchy and city are two different things.--Molobo (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they are, Molobo, which is exactly why the history of the present city and the historical duchy are separate. But nice try, considering I'm the one who has been saying that and you are trying to turn it around (but it's not working). In the context of the duchy, it's capital was at Pless, even if it may be called Pszczyna in the present day. Piotrus, was the duchy called Pless and the city called Pszczyna at the same time? The duchy may have been created long before Pless came to exist as a name, but there came a point where the duchy and its capital were both called Pless. It's like calling the capital of the Kingdom of Hanover "Hannover" when it would have been called Hanover (now Hannover, Germany) at that time. Charles 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NCGN is clear; we should use what English-speakers now use to refer to the town, and the principality, in a particular historic context. This is why we use, say, Leningrad or Wilno at all: because it is usual to call those cities thus when speaking about particular periods of the past. If anyone can come up with an English source which calls the past town Pszczyna and the duchy Pless, referring to the same time, please let us see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate rulers

In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia; however the Duchy retained its separate rulers.

The first clause of this sentence acknowledges that a small portion of Silesia remained Austrian. The second part asserts that Pless retained "separate rulers" (i.e. separate from Frederic II of Prussia?) ; this is nonsense. Please stop it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The latest

This edit is absolutely unacceptable. The use of the one Google hit for "Duchy of Pszczyna" ( Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (Warsaw. 1976) as though this single usage by a Polish translator proved equal weight to the standard and well-attested English usage, strains my assumption of good faith to the breaking point. The removal of the Pless-Rybnik contest, the longest reference to Pless in any on-line journal, is simply dishonest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The omission of the victory of the Centre Party is equally bad with the rest of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more results with Pszczyna Duchy: Studia historiae oeconomicae Economic history - 1966 [The Feudal Obligations of Peasants to the Landowners in the Pszczyna Duchy in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Śląsk - Page 41 Gustaw Morcinek - Silesia (Poland : Voivodeship) - 1935 The land of Pszczyna, which once constituted a duchy by itself --Molobo (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Autorstwa? Texts in Polish should determine usage on the Polish Misplaced Pages, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my google uses sometimes Polish language when giving results. The above mentioned texts are in English language.--Molobo (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please supply a link to the alleged Google results; these citations are unintelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just copy the titles and quotes into google books.--Molobo (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the link requested. The hits in question are #3, 11, and 14 of the 28 hits on Duchy + Pszczyna. All appear to be printed in Poland, and one of them is an off-hand translation of the title of a Polish article cited. Most of these hits are irrelevant, and5 of them also use Pless, mostly in the construct Pless (Pszczyna), which we should also do, per WP:NCGN. This does not imply that we should move Pszczyna; merely that we should call it Pless in those historic contexts where English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Note by contrast these 86 hits for Pless and Duchy; there are more references to the Duchy of Pless on the first page alone than all hits for Duchy of Pszczyna combined, and most of them are by native speakers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

The following text has been blanked:

but the Dukes, and later Princes, of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants. The Dukes of Anhalt-Cöthen-Pless inherited in 1765, being descended from the earlier dukes in the female line; the last of them died in 1847, and was succeeded by Count Hans Heinrich X of Hochberg, his son-in-law. The Hochbergs <:ref>Hans Heinrich X, XI, and XIV; the dynastic numbering was, like other princely families, given to all males of the House</ref> were among the wealthiest families of Germany, and lived in great state; they maintained a herd of wisent, given to them by Alexander II of Russia in 1864, but it was reduced to three survivors during the First World War.

The Duke of Ratibor was defeated in the first election to the Imperial German Reichstag, in 1871 by Eduard Müller, one of the founders of the Centre Party, although Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.

• This has been edited so as to claim that the Duke of Ratibor in question was defeated by the Polish Nationalists in 1903. Certainly not the case; the Centre Party held the seat in the intervening thirty years; I am not sure he was still alive.

Poeticbent has neglected to indicate whether he consents to mediation. To do so, he must sign his consent.

Hans Heinrich XIV succeeded in 1907; he had married Daisy, Princess of Pless, the diarist, whose memoirs are cited by Barbara Tuchman and other social historians.

Since these are the materials for which the sources are cited, they are now valueless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• • You've pasted the same text in two different places, here and here, making it look a lot less like a message to me, nevertheless, since you want to be taken seriously, I would expect that you do the same first... and respect my sources. I'm not totally against whatever relevant information there is in your paragraphs, but the cheap editorializing and runaway digressions ought to be edited out. Here are some of the worst examples:
    
  1. "Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants." Gimme a break, is this a blatant WP:COPYVIO or what?
  2. "Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed Eduard Müller (and, what is this guy doing here?), but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote..." I'm asking you, what does this have to do with the Duchy? Here's a simple answer: nothing! --Poeticbent talk 06:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
     • I am glad to see that I have mastered the art of encyclopedic prose. No, in fact it is not a copyvio - such charges should be accompanied with the source; it is a summary of a couple of paragraphs in Anderson (and a number of minor references in Princess Daisy's memoirs, but those apply strictly only to her own time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
     • Please observe this negative Google result. I am glad to see that this particular paraphrase of Herren und Grundbesitzern does not seem to have been hit on before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
     • This is the Prince of Pless using his powers as landowner over Pless (the territory) to influence an election; it is directly relevant, since it is indicates what these territorial lords could and would do in Wilhelmine times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
     • The Duchy of Pless was reckoned a Principality under Prussia; the German Widipedia says it became a Duchy again (in the Prussian Peerage, this time) in 1905. I will include this when I have sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
     • This charge of copyvio is another falsehood. I included a piquant detail; but this is not the language of my source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
     • I thank Poeticbent for observing that there are two Eduard Muellers. The German Misplaced Pages lists two more; we should eventually set up a dab page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read my full reply at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless#Additional issues to be mediated, where everything's explained in detail. Pmanderson continues his edit warring in spite of his request for mediation. I don't even mention his insulting comment in summary when he reverted my edits: “begin clean-up” The WP:UNDUE text filled with trivia about distant German families and a Swiss politician, is not related to the subject of this article. It is fair to assume that inappropriate actions would be followed by inappropriate reasoning. The sources given by Pmanderson in support of his request for mediation lead nowhere. To be more precise, they lead to a journal licensed to JSTOR, which is inaccessible without subscription.

• That's what Interlibrary loan is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

However, Pmanderson's WP:BIASed edits are elaborate enough to have originated somewhere, thus implying mechanical copying. I point your attention to the following sentence:
“Hans Heinrich XI…had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums…”
The source for this information (which I discovered on my own) reads as follows:
“Hans Heinrich XI...summoned his gendarmerie...and told them to work for the re-election...The constables rode...beating their drums...”

• My source was cited, both in this article and in the Mediation Request; this cannot have taken much work of his own. WP:COPYVIO requires that we avoid the exact words of the source, WP:V requires that we convey the exact assertions. This has done both.

In any case, the whole paragraph is out of place as per WP:UNDUE having no relation to the history of the Duchy spanning hundreds of years, therefore it was trimmed down even though already reverted again. Another one of Pmanderson's preposterous statements reads:
“Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants”
The original English expression (commonly known) reads instead:
“the lords of the manor were owners of the soil”

Please note that this phrase is from a book on the Enclosure Acts of England, and has in common the words owners, soil and lords - difficult to avoid when discussing quasi-feudal landowners; this is the first time I have ever seen it. The "difference in tone" is a difference in wording, which WP:COPYVIO requires; it represents the difference in fact between England and Prussian Silesia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note the difference in tone between the two: “lords of the manor” versus his “lords of inhabitants”.
The examples provided by Pmanderson in his request for mediation do not prove nor disprove anything. They only draw suspicion, considering that his edit warring goes on with even more offensive summaries. --Poeticbent talk 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• It proves that this revert warrior has now twice omitted verified assertions of fact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More Dubious claims

Poeticbent's claims at the Mediation contain the following dubious claim: He than inserted new WP:UNDUE text filled with trivia about distant German families and a one Eduard Müller, a Swiss politician, not related to the subject of this article.

• The sentence (quoted above) is about the family of Hochberg, Princes and Dukes of Pless, and a different Eduard Mueller, a Catholic priest, who won the parliamentary election for Pless in 1871. I await an explanation how either of these is "remote" from Pless.
• Poeticbent's much-proclaimed source for Prince of Pszszyna actually says that the Hochbergs were called Princes of Pszczyna. This (in an unreadable footnote) was for a time the only mention of the last ruling house in the entire article. It still omits any description of them. Is this balance? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the claim that I deleted Janczek, that vital source, please supply a diff. I do not remember doing so, and cannot find it; I may have moved it in two steps. In any case, I am content with the phrasing of my last edit:

The Duchy of Pless (Duchy of Pszczyna, Template:Lang-de, Template:Lang-pl) was ...

with note

This literal translation of the Polish is used by four sources printed in Poland: Julian Janczak, Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (An outline for the History of Cartography till the End of the 18th century), Opole: 1976; Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw: Institute of History of Science, Education and Technology, 1993, ISBN 83-86062-00-2. Accessed 2008-13-01. Tadeusz Walichnowski, Territorial Provenance of Archival Documents in International Relations (Przynaleznosc terytorialna archiwaliow Panstwa Polskiego w stosunkach miedzynarodowych), Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1977. Polish State Archives. Nagel's Encyclopedia Guide, Poland by Nagel Publishers, 1989, 399 pages, ISBN 2826308181. Accessed 2008-13-01.

To me this seems stretching the advice of WP:NCGN to the breaking point, although it may seem little enough to others; this is always the way. In any case, it includes Janczak and three other references for the minority usage, and (what may be equally pleasing) none of the data for the usage universal in English outside Poland.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless. All who want to join in are welcome; but, if you do, you should both list yourself as a party and sign agreement to mediate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If Poeticbent really wants the Mediation, he must sign his agreement to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus

I thank Piotrus for this edit. His edit comment was: restored to a useful version, but the last part is a bit unclear, and I don't see how relevant is the political history fo the Dukes to the history of the Duchy.

We could divide the article into Duchy of Pless and Duke of Pless (although Prince of Pless might be more useful). Short of that, I don't see where to put the political history of the Dukes other than here.

The unclarity is in part, I suppose, my original failure to convey Margaret Anderson's point here (no relation; I first heard of her last week). The Prince's power over his land and tenants was very great; he could enlist even the servants of the Prussian state into an election campaign, and threaten the economic position of those who voted against his chosen candidate. But it was not unlimited; the opposition candidate won anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I support creation an article with list of dukes and their history. Why would Prince be more correct than Duke? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I said more convenient, because a narrative account is likely to have more (and more incoming links) about the Hochbergs than about, say, the Thurzós; the nineteenth century is better documented. But the question is, should we divide at all? The new title is secondary.

A list of Dukes will be a different matter; although even there our tendency is to list them under the most recent title. Compare Earl of Argyll, which we discuss under Duke of Argyll. It is also customary to include lists of peers in the article on the peerage; although very few British peerages lasted as long as Pless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Header

In the process of removing redundant parentheses, I have tweaked the header again. Let us discuss. WP:NCGN sets the criteria for inclusion of names as as "10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". (I acknowledge that this is not intended for exactly this case; but the spirit seems clear.) Duchy of Pszczyna fails the first condition and gets in on the second; it seems undue weight to bold it. Comments?

Frankly, if someone wants to try another version, fine; but I'd rather discuss it.

Pszczyna

I do not understand the purpose of LUCPOL's various tweaks of "Pszczyna, Poland". I don't object to " (Pszczyna, now in Poland)", but perhaps he could explain? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand the argument (btw, don't expect LUCPOL to read talkpages or reply in English language...) the argument is 1) that Pszczyna is not only now in Poland but was in Poland before the period of fragmentation and 2) the opposing one is that it wasn't for many centuries in between.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with both points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:En icon Duchy of Pless not only was in Poland. Tens % of history of Duchy of Pless there is no relationship with Poland. Possible to write: Pszczyna in Poland 1xxx to 1xxx year, in other country/kingdom/empire 1xxx to 1xxx year, in yet different country/kingdom/empire 1xxx to 1xxx year (PS. "1xxx" is date to supplement, "country/kingdom/empire" - to supplement of name country/kingdom/empire).

Template:Pl icon Księstwo Pszczyńskie nie tylko było w Polsce. Kilkadziesiąt % historii Księstwa Pszczyńskiego nie ma żadnej relacji z Polską. Można by napisać: Pszczyna w Polsce od 1xxx do 1xxx roku, w innym kraju / królestwie / imperium 1xxx do 1xxx roku, w jeszcze różnym kraju / królestwie / imperium 1xxx do 1xxx roku (PS. "1xxx" to data do uzupełnienia, "kraj / królestwo / imperium" - uzupełnić nazwę kraju / królestwa / imperium). LUCPOL (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in Poland now and was in Poland originally, so writing that it's in Poland only now is misleading. Oh yeah! And stop using icon Template:En icon together with your poor imitation of that language. Cheers. Space Cadet (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Protegé

I do not see why Poeticbent insists on describing the Duke of Ratibor as a "protegé" of the Prince of Pless. This implies in English, as in French, that the protegé is a lesser man, and requires protection. Not true here: the two men were neighbors; the Duke may not have been quite as wealthy, but he was older and of higher social rank. He also owned substantial land in the district, even if not half of it.

In English, unlike French, it is also a rare and high-faluting word. "Candidate" is the normal unmarked word for someone running for elective office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor observation.

It seems every second sentence writes "of Pless". For better flow of the text the usage of the name should be reduced to reasonable levels.--Molobo (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Such WP:POV pushing is totally out of place especially with regards to peripherals like the local mine for example, which is NOT and never was a political entity. Please go ahead and restore the ballance whenever necessary. --Poeticbent talk 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would regret to be forced to conclude that such enthusiastic editors have failed to understand the English language.

• Molobo, please read Protectorate before you make ungrounded assumptions about neutral language.
• Also, please learn to spell: remaine is not English.
• Poeticbent, what language from the WP:MOS do you claim to represent?
• What justification do you have for omitting the verifiable facts that the house of Anhalt-Pless, and therefore the Hochbergs, descend from the older Dukes? it is, after all, their title to the estate.
• Again, what justification is there for removing the present Hochberg claim to the style of Prince of Pless ? No one else claims it.
• That the wisent were kept in Pless implies they were herd animals, which is absurd.
• This edit removes "of Pless", which is contrary to the WP:MOS at the price of vagueness and factual error. The interest of the mines to this article is not that they were local; there are local mines all over Silesia; it is that they belong here.
• The title Hans Heinrich XI received was Duke of Pless; I see no presentable reason to deny it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• While the heroic Polish newspaper of 1829 is badly sourced (a website is only a website, and not really reliable), it is a definite find. Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"a website is only a website, and not really reliable"-Might we know why you consider the University of Bielsko-Biała an unreliable source ? Also stop the personal attacks.--Molobo (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Better than some; but hardly any website has been through the verification that publication implies. As WP:V says: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. This is none of the above; it would be preferable to have one, and more preferable still to have one in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And who reviewed the diary of Mary Theresa Cornwallis-West which is used as source. Is it connected to scholary research at all. Also Non-English publications are no worse in giving knowledge then English ones.--Molobo (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Her editor, Desmond Chapman-Hutton, on whose footnote on the Act I am relying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Most books have editors. A diary of a princess can hardly compared to a scholary text.

Most books have editors (and publishers); most websites do not. That's the difference. An editor in good faith would have noticed that I did not say the fact or the source should be removed. In fact, I restored them; but it is not the best, which I stand by. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it can stay, but neutrality must be ensured an if she is used a source, we need to mention what kind of source writes that.--Molobo (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is not preserved by having WP express an opinion of a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think nobody is trying to do that. Just present what source claims what.--Molobo (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Made a Prince

The Hochbergs were Princes of Pless in the Prussian peerage; however, in 1905, Hans Heinrich XI was made a Prince, for his lifetime only - in part because he had been a Prince for fifty years;

Has it occurred to Molobo that he is writing nonsense? Hans Heinrich XI was not made a Prince in 1905; he had been one since 1855, when his father died. He was made "Duke of Pless", and we should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC) And I edited him to a Duke. Please do look carefully and once again stop the personal attacks.--Molobo (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have; Molobo's edit is here. This is only one of Molobo's errors.

• The source speaks about the town itself not the district so that change is not supported by the source itself. Clarify
  • Two sources are cited; Margaret Anderson's paper, in the references, speaks of the district; and of 1867, which is a longer resistance to Germanizaation.
• his wife claims that, requires more neutral source
  • All sources can be improved; but there is no reason to disparage this one: claims is opinion, and describing the author by her maiden name is more error.
• this compound edit is also factual error. Pless was not a Duchy in 1867. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)