Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:49, 28 August 2020

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Article detailing extremist ideology Anti-Japaneseism probably doesn't meet WP:NPOV

Copy pasted from the talk page:

The wording in this article is extremely suspicious.

• Anti-Japaneseism radicalized this argument by claiming that even communist revolution could not redeem Japan because the Japanese themselves possess an inherent "aggressive nature".
• Proponents of this theory believe that the only way to redeem oneself from the "oppressor and criminal Japanese race" is to fight against all Japanese interests until the "Japanese" archipelago has been purged of anything Japanese.
• The so-called "final solution" of Anti-Japaneseism is to wipe the nation called "Japan" from the face of the earth and exterminate the Japanese race.
• A section titled: Strategy to extinguish Japanese ethnicity

There's a genuine possibility this could be neutral but I'm going to use my Occam's razor here and say that either:

• This is a hoax.
• This is an ideology that is so radically fringe, with so few members, that it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards.
• It is, in some way, being inaccurately represented.

I have full confidence that, considering this article is only linked to by eleven actual articles that are, for the most part, obscure topics themselves, this article is not going to have enough traffic to be source-vetted by a native Japanese speaker. Despite this, it seems to have been linked to or cited on numerous online sources where some degree of political discussion, however immature, is bound to take place. For this reason, I'm going to copy-paste this message onto the NPOV noticeboard so someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look at the issue.

96.55.212.210 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Of archdukes and princes

There's an interesting discussion going on at Template talk:Austrian archdukes right now over the inclusion, and implicitly the titling, of articles on members of the former royal house of Austria, after the Habsburg Law abolished the nobility. Put simply, some sources (i.e. books about royal houses) continue to style members of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine as "archduke" and "crown prince" and such, but the government does not, and the archduchy does not exist. In recent months a number of the sources used to support some of the more fanciful titles have been identified as unreliable - self-published by non-experts. That reduces the number of sources making the claims, but does not eliminate them. It's a knotty problem: does Misplaced Pages violate NPOV by talking about Stefan von Habsburg-Lothringen as if he were an Archduke, listing his titles and styles as "His Imperial and Royal Highness", and saying that he married morganatically when there is no recognised title to inherit? As I say, the template talk discussion is interesting. Guy (help!) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My approach to the broader question of royalty w/o a kingdom is to avoid using the titles in wiki-voice. Instead I generally put a note in the personal lives section that the subject is sometimes accorded certain royal/noble honorifics on an unofficial basis as a courtesy, often by monarchists. I also note the country in question is now a republic and that the titles have no legal standing. Royal titles should not be included in info-boxes or the lead if they have no official recognition. That seems to solve the issue. See Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, that's entirely reasonable. I have moved several of these articles along exactly those lines, but DWC LR has reverted at least some.

Apart from anything else, how confusing is it for the reader to be presented with an article that claims active royal titles for a country that the linked article proclaims to be a republic, and where following the succession boxes gives an article on the last holder of the title, described as such? Guy (help!) 08:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG that's great that you think the law of a country is the be all end all. For centuries if you take the French royals, titles have been attributed to deposed royals and that is reflected in hundreds of sources (not just Self Published websites, I have a book shelf full of Reliable Sources I could use). Take the Court of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a sovereign state, "L'Archiduc Carl Christian d'Autriche et l'Archiduchesse Marie-Astrid d'Autriche, sœur du Grand-Duc ont également respectivement reçu ces deux distinctions.". It's only within Austria its illegal there is no guarantee the people even live there. Misplaced Pages is guided by sources not editors POV. Here's the official website of Bran Castle in Romania owned by the late Archduke Stefan's siblings "On June 1, 2009, the Castle fully re-entered the possession of its legal heirs, Archduke Dominic, Archduchess Maria Magdalena and Archduchess Elisabeth.". But how can this be Austria says there are no Archdukes. - dwc lr (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

How can it be? Because anyone can say they are anything, that's why. The promotional website of a castle owned by members of a formerly-royal family and operated as a tourist attraction is not a reliable source as to whether someone is or is not actually the holder of a royal title. There isn't actually an archduke - there's someone who calls themself an archduke but does not rule an archduchy because no such archduchy exists.

I am with Ad Orientem on this matter - if there isn't actually a recognized royal family anymore, a title should not be stated as if it has a factual or legal basis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So a Hungarian born male now says there female. As the law says they can't legally change gender we refer to them by their legal gender? - dwc lr (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone's gender is their own private matter. Someone claiming to be an archduke is claiming to have some sort of monarchical power or authority which hasn't existed for more than a century. The two are not remotely comparable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, it is the be all and end all. You cannot be a king of a place that has abolished the monarchy, you cannot be a prince of a place that has abolished princes, you cannot be an archduke of a place that has abolished archduchies.

I note that you have moved one of these back to Archduke Markus of Austria (see talk:Archduke Markus of Austria). He was born in 1946. He was never an archduke. It really is that simple. We can say that he styles himself thus, but we cannot call him this, per NPOV, and we absolutely cannot subscribe to the absurd fantasy that he is styled "His Imperial and Royal Highness". The last Emperor of Austria-Hungary was Charles I. There was a war and everything. Guy (help!) 08:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So Hungary says legally you can't change gender. So we refer to transgender Hungarians's by their legal gender yeah? - dwc lr (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of the law. Didn't the house of Habsburg renounce all their claims and titles 60 years ago? Referring to someone by a title they legally cannot hold and that they personally do not claim seems like a BLP violation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No just Otto von Habsburg, his brothers and other family members for example explicitly did not. If they don't claim a title, renounce said title, that's useful and should be put in the article. - dwc lr (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, it's not up to them. The title no longer exists. They don't get to choose. Guy (help!) 10:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is exceptionally obvious, and has been iterated and reiterated above: man or woman X can claim to be the archduke/duchess·of Y, but if country Z has abolished archduchies, then Y no longer exists as a legal title to be held.

Advice, DWC LR: there's a danger that you build a reputation for yourself as a POV-pusher: if that happens, and you continue this editing pattern, blocks are likely to follow. FYI!

Particularly if you continue with the strawman of lgbtq rights in Hungary, which has literally nothing (that I can see) with its ancient nobility. ——Serial 09:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The only crime I’m guilty of is citing a load of reliable sources which say X is an Archduke. I’m more than happy for an article say Austria does not legally recognise the title Archduke but that does not change the facts they still are attributed and use the titles. The Hungarian point is valid, in trying to understand here do we pick and choose which laws we respect? Are we guided by national laws even though we are not bound by them? What is our consistent view on this it’s an important Community issue with wide implications. - dwc lr (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, we know there are royalty fandom sources that use titles that no longer exist. That is a problem only when people try to reflect that fantasy as if it were a reality.

Ask the government of Austria who is the reigning Archduke, what do you think they will say? In the end, the choice of who rules is not solely down to those who wish to do the ruling. Guy (help!) 10:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s well established practice that deposed royals are still attributed titles, these titles pre date most modern states. Hence the countless sources one could cite. I’m not stupid so I wouldn’t ask that question? I’m well aware that they are not reigning that’s made perfectly clear all over. The Head the House of Habsburg considers he decides who is an Archduke, it’s a defined group of people which is reflected in Reliable Sources. We can argue this stuff for ever the fact is lots and lots of reliable sources and the Head of the House of Habsburg say they are still Archduke, we are not bound by Austrian law we present this matter in a NPOV. Yet that is not good enough for some who want there POV and there’s alone. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I just don't understand the motivation of editors who seem to want to pretend that WW1 never happened and the Hapsburgs still rule. It's a fantasy world and if there are people who want to play an alternate reality game there is no reason for WP to join in. It's an insult to Austria to say "you think your government abolished Archdukes more than 100 years ago, but you're wrong, we know better, you can't abolish them, so there." Every article on WP that labels people with abolished titles should be revised or deleted, this ridiculous practice needs to stop. Smeat75 (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree. It is OK to say something like "X claims to be and Archduke of Austria despite Austria dissolving all archduchies in 1918" but it is not OK to call anyone after 1908 "Archduke of Austria". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The simple fact is titles are still recognised, perhaps not in Austria but recognised none the less. No one is pretending WW1 did not happen as no one is saying Karl von Habsburg is the Emperor of Austria. You know Austria doesn’t rule the world, it can only control what happens inside it own borders. The Belgian Monarchy says Princess Astrid married Lorenz, Archduke of Austria-Este, so what are the Belgian Monarchy getting at, are they living in a fantasy land or maybe they’ve been conned, go Guy Macon, go tell them it’s not ok tell them the title was abolished they obviously missed the memo. Titles are still attributed to deposed royals that has been the way of life for hundreds of years, this is common practice. But unfortunately some Misplaced Pages Editors can’t get there heads round these facts and try to impose their POV because WP: I just don't like it. I don’t have the first clue what the legal name of Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark do you? You’d have to engage in serious Original Research cook up some utter nonsense like your supporting over at Archduke Markus of Austria and violating BLP. If anyone is pretending it’s your good selves that titles are not still attributed, used and recognised. - dwc lr (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Este (a noble house) not Archduke of Austria.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s a title and inheritance gifted by the last Emperor of Austria to his second son, the father of Lorenz and legally abolished with the rest of the Habsburg’s titles in Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And? If that is his title that is what we should use if we must have a title.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree Reliable Sources recognise and use it, we should be guided by them. - dwc lr (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If RS say they are Archduke of Austria, if RS say "X claims to be and Archduke of Austria " so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to note in the body of the article "so and so would be Princess or Archduke or whatever of such and such had the position not been abolished and sometimes people still call him/her that" but the name of the article and the info box should not include those defunct titles, although hundreds do. Also articles should not say someone "claims " a defunct royal position unless there's a reliable source with a direct quote from the person making such a claim. Again, hundreds of articles say someone "claims " to be holder of a defunct royal title with no evidence. It's a BLP violation, I don't believe most of those people are really so delusional as to make such ludicrous "claims ".Smeat75 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources referring to Karl von Hapsburg as Archduke include Tatler Vanity Fair and The New York Times, in Austria he appears to be mostly referred to as "Kaiser enkel" literally meaning emperor's grandson. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well NYT seems to say "otherwise known as Archduke Karl of Austria", Vanity fair “ the ancestral archduke of Austria” and Tatler (is that an RS?)   Austrian Archduke Karl von Habsburb (which is the closer to saying he is archduke of Austria, but it is not worded as a sole title). Sorry I am not sure any of these say he is "Archduke of Austria" at best they treat it as a courtesy title.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes, that's how Hello and other sleb pages represent it. But at the same time, it asserts feudal lordship in a context where no such lordship exist. Guy (help!) 15:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I say we can say "is called" or "claims" but we cannot say it as a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What do people think about the titles that are part of the now abolished Greek Monarchy? Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece, Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark,Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark and Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark, obviously this is a different issue as the monarchy was abolished much more recently and they are also part of the still existing Danish monarchy and are referred to as such in The New York Times, among other sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Again we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

::Agree with Slatersteven follow the Reliable Sources which may well recognise the title and for a NPOV add a note to the article the monarchy was abolished, title not recognised there whatever the case may be, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be simple like that where people don’t let there POV get the better of them. - dwc lr (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A quick note here. The legal approach to titles in former monarchies since turned republic is not uniform in Europe. Austria has taken a fairly hard line on the subject. But in France (how ironic) titles have not been legally abolished and are still used and subject to actual government regulation. They have no legal status and confer no privilege but are treated as part of the family name. The Ministry of Justice has jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. In Germany titles also have no legal standing but many aristocratic families have incorporated their old titles into their legal names and this has been generally accepted. Spain and Belgium are both current constitutional monarchies and I have heard (though have not confirmed) that in official court documents (royal court, not legal court) they use the former titles of the Hapsburgs when referring to members of the family in the present tense. Which would seem to suggest some level of formal acceptance of the titles within those states. I haven't found any discussion of this on the part of the civil governments there, leading me to suspect that they probably just don't give a bleep. In short, the question is a bleeping mess. All of which said, I still stand by my suggestion above. Misplaced Pages should not be conferring any formal recognition of titles that do not enjoy some level of official recognition within the country where they are claimed to originate. Of course in the case of the Hapsburgs (and Romanovs etc.) there are a lot of people who do privately recognize the titles and routinely use them, myself included. That needs to be noted, but not in the lead or in any info box. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• How would you treat the style of the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, they say she is HRH but that comes from her birth into the deposed Royal House of Bavaria. I’m sure the majority here would want us to contradict that Sovereign State and insist she is actually just HSH like her husband and in laws. - dwc lr (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question, reinforcing my point that this subject is messy. In this case I would have to defer to the government of the Principality since that is where she lives and she is a member of the ruling family. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Here is my interpretation of how we should treat nobility:

• Misplaced Pages has articles defining various titles, their histories, and their holders. There is ample coverage of how noble titles are/were treated in the cases where states and/or monarchies were dissolved or where people abdicated.
• These articles are ideally built from the abundant academic sources describing the status of nobility before and after abolition of their monarchies.
  • In fact, it is almost certain there are more reliable sources discussing as unquestioned fact the abolition of Austrian titles than there are equivalent-quality sources operating under the assumption the titles are extant.
• If Misplaced Pages purports, in wiki voice, the consensus understanding of royal and noble titles in a particular country, that view should be consistent between articles.
  • We could even say the meaning and history of a title are transcluded in all articles and templates in which they are wiki-linked...
• Therefore, wiki-linked title A ascribed in wiki voice to person X on their page or in a template/category should carry the same parent-article-supported meaning that it does in the article for person Y.
  • Stated another way, an article should not have a separate wiki voice interpretation of an externally-defined faculty.
• In cases where a wiki-linked term, through novel use in an RS, conveys a different or secondary meaning than that covered by the parent article, that meaning should be attributed. If that usage becomes widespread among multiple RS and is applicable to several articles, but there is no corresponding change in the consensus understanding--that is, (ideally academic) RS are not discussing an evolution of meaning in the term itself--a new category might be created reflecting this usage and its context.

Right now, what we have instead is:

• We are affirming the current existence of a constitutionally-abolished title in wiki voice. With templates like this and this, we are unequivocally declaring Ferdinand Zvonimir (born 1997), great-grandson of the last Emperor of Austria, Charles I, holds the exact same title as everyone else listed. A small note mentioning titles of nobility were abolished in 1919 does not provide sufficient context to the reader. How are they to know from the template that this guy was called "archduke of Austria" by Austrians and the Austrian government, but this other guy is only called "archduke of Austria" by foreign press and in fact it is illegal for him to title himself in Austria?
• We are putting forth contradictory statements. Despite our extensive coverage of Austrian nobility and its abolition, we have articles like Archduke Markus of Austria (born 1946) and Archduke Stefan of Austria (1932) that call them archdukes (and princes of Tuscany) without challenge. Even within the same article (e.g. Archduke Carl Christian of Austria) we will mention the fact that the subject belongs to the former ruling house of Austria, but then go along calling him an archduke anyway. We label Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966), in near-adjacent templates, as both a "Titular Grand Duke of Tuscany" ("title in pretense") and a prince of Tuscany. Conversely, the names of articles on people with identical lineage may or may not include a title depending on the availability of media coverage and who the most recent editor was. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC) got logged out somehow?

Comment. What interests me here are the approaches being taken. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect what sources say. Instead of focusing on that and and the implications for how policies are implemented, some of the arguments here are based on what individual editors think the factual truth is, which is immaterial. As an example of the type of argument which should be raising red flags, proceeding from a personal view of the truth, one of the arguments presented is that any sources which which think it the correct form to accord titles to people which relate to legally defunct entities should automatically be regarded as non-reliable.     ←   ZScarpia   20:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC (archdukes)

How should Misplaced Pages represent people who claim to defunct titles? Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Background

As noted above, there are a large number of titles of nobility that have been abolished, usually by the founding of a democratic state. The titles of the former nobility may be formally banned (as for example the Archduke of Austria, which is forbidden under the Habsburg Law, they may be converted to family names (as with Prinz von Bayern, for the former princely family of Bavaria), or they may simply fall into abeyance. Translating the family name Prinz von Bayern yields "Prince of Bavaria" in English, which is assumed to be a title where it is not - note for example that Manuel Prinz von Bayern publishes in the scientific literature as Manuel Prinz von Bayern or Manuel von Bayern, he does not translate the name. Royalist sources such as Almanach de Gotha routinely use the titles as if nothing happened. Many of the articles drew on sources that are self-published royalty fansites (e.g. Royal Ark, Online Gotha), and which have now been deprecated as unreliable. Society pages also use the titles, again as if nothing happened. In some cases, such as the Prince of Prussia, the country itself no longer exists as such. In many cases royalist sources and society reports are the only sources, these may be people who are "famous for being famous", which is certainly an additional complication for WP:V when the sources insist on using a nonexistent title - up to as point this is also a WP:TRUTH/WP:V conflict, but only superficially as most of the sources that remain as RS do not in fact claim that the tiles are still extant.

So we have a conflict between COMMONNAME and NPOV and TRUTH and the rest: a classic Misplaced Pages dilemma. Complicating this, we have competing RS: some calling a person by a title, and others, generally much more substantial, saying that this title no longer exists. Good faith editors argue both for use of the titles as if they still exist, because sources do so, and for non-use, because that is inherently misleading and confusing when a title no longer exists This is resolved inconsistently between articles, and attempts to make it consistent result in revert wars and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS sometimes of only a handful of interested editors. The desire for a consistent approach seems reasonable, though we should not bend over backwards to enforce consistency where an exception makes sense. Accordingly, I propose the following:

Proposal

Titles should not be asserted in Wiki-voice after their abolition. Thus: article titles must not reflect titles that were abolished before accession. Implicitly, then, holders of titles current during their lifetimes should be identified by the title (e.g. Archduke Ferdinand) but holders of titles abolished before they were ever assumed (e.g. modern-day descendants of the Prince of Prussia) should be identified by the family name, with a suitable descriptive narrative describing succession, but should not be included in navigation templates etc. as holders of the abolished title of nobility. Timelines, navboxes etc should not ascribe titles of nobility to those who would only have assumed them after their abolition. {{Infobox nobility}} and variants should be used for those who held titles of nobility up to and including the title's abolition, and {{infobox person}} or variant should be used for those who never held the title before its abolition. Edge cases such as crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession, or pretenders to recently abolished titles prior to establishment of a stable alternative, should be handled case by case.

Opinions (archdukes)

• Support, as proposer. We should not be pretending that there is still a place called Prussia that has princes, or that Austria still has an archduke. Guy (help!) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support I am not sure we should be making the decision that a title is defunct. But we should also not be pandering to the egos of purely honorary titles. So on balance I would rather we did not use honorary titles in people names.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For article titles use WP:Common Name and Reliable Sources and judge each case on its own merits, you can’t have a one size fits all approach. This is textbook Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it and goes against every policy Misplaced Pages has, NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research. Take Margareta of Romania what’s her legal name? Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark what’s her legal name? Maximilian, Margrave of Baden what’s his legal name? These are BLP’s of people who are known by titles yet this proposal seemingly wants to invent fantasy names for them, when we won’t have the first idea what the legal name is. We can’t just go around engaging in Original Research making up unverified nonsense which is ultimately what this proposal does. The Almanach de Gotha for example was mentioned, this is not a “Royalist Source” it’s a Genealogical, Diplomatic and Statistical journal. There is no need for Self Published websites to be used anywhere and they shouldn’t be, as there are many reliable sources and Sovereign States which recognise titles of deposed royalty which could be used instead. dwc lr (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose enforcing the usage of legal names instead of common names. The use of common names is a policy of this project; the use of legal names is not and has never been. Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  To elaborate, people should be called whatever they are called in reliable sources. By that I do not mean genealogy publications such as Almanach de Gotha (because Misplaced Pages is not a genealogy database) but reputable media outlets and academic publications. I wish there would be a more concentrated effort on establishing the notability of these people. What I think we would find is that a vast majority of the articles should be deleted rather than renamed. For those who are indeed notable it should be easy to establish what the common name is and use it. The content of the article should, of course, make it clear that the title used, if any, is not legally recognized. I think there are easy ways to achieve this. Here is a suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support to stop, in each and every case, labeling people with abolished titles. This has always seemed to me a mere fantasy game playing. I also think it is extremely disrespectful to Germany and Austria, for instance, to imply "you think you abolished royal and noble titles for any of your citizens more that a hundred years ago, but we know better, you can't abolish them,such titles are eternal, people still call them Princess and Duke etc. and so do we, so there."Smeat75 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  The fact that neither Germany nor Austria have had any sort of a diplomatic row with the United Kingdom, Monaco, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Liechtenstein, etc, over this matter suggests to me that neither country gives a toss, let alone finds it extremely disrespectful. I would be much more wary of being disrespectful towards individuals by imposing on them names that they do not use or even legally bear. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support strongly for article style, templates, timelines, succession boxes, as well as (unmentioned explicitly) categories. Support with provisos for COMMONNAME for article titles; per DWC LR above, I will grudgingly admit that there are some pretenders whose actual legal name is sufficiently murky, and whose claimed title is sufficiently prominent, that it's better to just use an article title in the style of their claim, but it should be clear that this isn't the default policy. When this happens, though, the article content should make clear that it is the same amount of deference given to, say, Emperor Norton or Queen Latifah - that these are just names with no legal backing. To go into a bit more detail - when Misplaced Pages presents a claim as "according to this old rule set / according to this branch of royalists", it's fine. When Misplaced Pages presents something as a real, actual government-approved title, it needs to actually be true. This is maybe more obvious with existant-but-contested positions: If somebody claimed to be a mayor who wasn't actually the mayor, it'd obviously be ridiculous and misleading for a Misplaced Pages article to just accept the claim. Yet that's exactly what we do for government-abolished and hypothetical titles, far too often. SnowFire (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Wait...what? You mean Lady Sovereign isn't an actual sovereign and Duke Ellington isn't an actual duke?? Who knew? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, there's lots of them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support for excluding claimants of abolished titles from navboxes, categories, and other templates and referring to them in wikivoice. I laid out my reasoning in the prior section (accidentally as an IP: diff) and echo the statements of Guy, Smeat75, and SnowFire. I think the article title is a different issue that should be addressed separately for COMMONNAME considerations (per Surtsicna, dwc lr, and Slatersteven). I would suggest amending the scope of this RfC to cover only how we treat the nobility title (in the article body and templates) as its own defined entity external to the person using it. There is a semantic difference between calling oneself or being called "Archduke of Austria", and being "Archduke of Austria". JoelleJay (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh. My comment says "oppose" but I find myself entirely in agreement with JoelleJay, who says "strong support". It goes to show that the scope of the RfC may indeed be a bit too wide. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support User:JoelleJay's proposal, especially as User:Surtsicna would too, which makes it seem that conflicts would be unlikely. Smeat75 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​(Pinging everyone who has participated in this section) Clarifying my vote/restructuring proposal: 1. Support removing abolished titles from article names of people who never held them, in the absence of RS demonstrating clear COMMONNAME usage. 2. Support a) removing wikivoice assertions that such a person is or holds <title>, and b) removing them from title-dependent templates, lists, and categories. JoelleJay (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So, make a new rule that's about how you can ignore COMMMONNAME if you don't feel sources make it "clear" enough? That's not solving any demonstrable problem; that's creating new ones. --A D Monroe III 20:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, WP:COMMONNAME is quite explicit that if it isn't clear what the common name is, then other factors may come in to play. JoelleJay's proposal does not in any way conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. Kahastok talk 21:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay I oppose all proposals. These are extremely complex issues that a single policy should not cover, plus Misplaced Pages already has policies in place that handle these issues perfectly. Each and every article and issue should be looked at and scrutinised individually. The templates where there have been discussions (eg Archdukes) attempt to treat the issues fairly and neutrally (NPOV policy) (eg it notes legally in Austria it was abolished etc), it can be cited who is still attributed the title despite this (so meets Verifiability policy) and is so listed on the template, Common Name (another policy) can be used for article titles. To me this proposal says Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it to a particular issue so it attempts to override the existing Misplaced Pages policies. To give you an example of a complex case take the brother of ex King Juan Carlos I of Spain, the Infante Alfonso of Spain as an example. He was born and died when General Franco ruled Spain. His article has the title Infante of Spain, he’s listed on the Infante of Spain template, he’s listed in the Spanish Infante’s category. What would you do with him? Stick to NPOV, Verifiability, Common Name, if a claim is unsourced remove it, if you think someone is known as something else create a move request, if someone is not notable Prod/AFD it. The tools already exist. - dwc lr (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy's proposal already has a provision for case-by-case consideration when there is a pretender to a recently-abolished title in an unstable successor state. Francoist Spain was a de jure monarchy from 1947 on, with Franco claiming it was a restoration of the previous ruling house and personally cultivating the education of Juan Carlos in Spain--even if we now know he didn't end up naming JC as king until 1969, the situation was still very different from that seen in Austria where nobility was legally abolished and there was no ambiguity about where the Habsburg-Lorraines stood in the eyes of the Austrian government. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good idea. I support that. I don't know if this rfC needs to be revised accordingly.Smeat75 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose creep. Misplaced Pages already has established policies and guidelines which cover these cases. DrKay (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support in general. The idea that countries such as Austria, Hungary, Germany and Russia are not republics is WP:FRINGE, and we should not be assigning people royal titles that they do not hold. This applies particularly in infoboxes, templates and article bodies, but it should at least be the presumption in article titles as well. Kahastok talk 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I accept JoelleJay's proposal as a reasonable compromise, fully in line with the appropriate naming guidelines including WP:COMMONNAME. Kahastok talk 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly support, but COMMONNAME might be significant. I definitely agree we should not be doing defunct royalty boxes and similar, any more than we would do "Secretary of State" after that position ceases to exist. We certainly shouldn't be asserting anything like that in Misplaced Pages's voice as if it exists. However I'm not familiar with these articles and I see potential that the COMMONNAME could be significant in some cases. In the extreme, the claimed-title could be the only thing we have. If we have a normal/legal name and a credible case for going that way, then we should prefer normal/legal name and mention that the "title" is an unofficial alternate. If a defunct title really is the exclusive or significantly dominant COMMONNAME we might have to treat it sort of like "Queen Latifah" with care and explanation. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:RECENTISM. I sympathise with the intention, but as written this is overly broad. The proposal isn't simply going to apply to a bunch of socialites with slightly unusual genealogies. It's also going to apply 18th century Jacobites, and 19th century Bonapartes, Bourbons and Carlists. Wars were fought over those claims; they've arguably got more in common with unrecognised states or governments-in-exile than they do with modern pretenders. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• General support. If I'm understanding correctly, the proposer is not proposing that we go back and change historical figures but that we avoid attributing a non-existent title to individuals just because they claim them. That seems quite reasonable. Deb (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally support for modern pretenders when it comes to article or template text, categories, etc, with an understanding that article titles themselves need to also take COMMONNAME into consideration, as JoelleJay says. Forcing a monarchist POV onto articles is not NPOV. (Considering RaiderAspect's point, I would also suggest that pretenders from well before modern history, e.g. from a thousand years ago, be discussed separately in a discussion focused specifically on them and on looking at how sources most commonly refer to them.) -sche (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per dwc lr's arguments. I don't see a need to invent a new policy on this. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Following COMMONNAME should be sufficient. If sources have the title persisting despite being "abolished", then WP has no business trying to enforce something over the sources. There's going to be a lot of complicated, subtle, and unique cases under this, ill-served by a black-and-white rule. If we end up with a few "famous for being famous" articles for the time being, so what? Nothing much will link to them, and the'll harmlessly linger in their dusty corners for a few years. The only thing making a rule about this will accomplish is pointless editor conflicts over how to apply this generic rule in a bunch of specific cases -- nothing constructive to improving WP. --A D Monroe III 23:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, there are a seemingly endless amount of English-language sources (here are some recent ones , , ) that uncritically refer to, for example Karl von Habsburg as "Archduke", or call him "royalty", even though that title that was abolished a century ago and that he has never claimed it. When low-quality popular sources are contradicted by higher quality and specialist sources, we ignore the popular sources. I think it's quite likely in this case that some journalists take their cues from the wikipedia article, which until recently called him "Archduke" in the article infobox. With so many low-quality sources carelessly contradicting reality, this proposal will hopefully provide some guidance to editors an encourage them to seek higher quality sources on these subjects. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:FD72:E8C8:A75A:CC6C (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI this was this IP's very first Misplaced Pages edit... JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have edited before, it’s just that my IP tends to change based on where I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.249.111 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME solves this issue. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: COMMONNAME is for article titles, though? How does it solve the issue of categorizing people with an abolished title alongside those who held the title when it existed? Or listing pretenders in navboxes for those titles? These are clearly different situations. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that people feel they have to say either yes or no to the proposal as a whole, and many would rather have potentially misleading navboxes on the bottom of the page than an unrecognizable article title on the top. Surtsicna (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, we should follow WP:COMMONNAME here. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP should follow WP:COMMONNAME. And in a large majority of these cases, for all intents and purposes, they are royal. They're related to the royal family in some capacity, are treated like royalty, referred to as royalty in RS, etc. And they meet notability guidelines. No changes needed. --Kbabej (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue is too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution. WP:COMMONNAME and a measure of common sense should prevail. TFD (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• While I agree with the ideas in principle, I'm not sure this broad sweeping proposal is the best way to handle it. There is significant variation among how different European countries handle titles, and there is going to be even more variation outside of Europe. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made as well between a title and a position. Someone can claim a title forever, but if the position is abolished then the title simply doesn't mean the same thing. CMD (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• support-ish By and large these people are notable only because of their pretense (or, I'm guessing, others' pretense on their behalf) to these titles. But we need to be clear that the titles are in that way unreal, and thus I think COMMONNAME has to stand aside and have them first identified by their legal name, and then very clearly establish that the tiles are in pretense even if that is how they are most commonly identified. Truth has to come before what people commonly say. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. No compelling reason to encumber WP:COMMONNAME here. As our article on Archduke notes, since the 16th century, "Archduke" has simply been a title denoting membership, to a certain degree, of the House of Hapsburg, and hasn't carried implications of sovereignty, rulership, authority, etc., as asserted in many of the arguments above. Choess (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME should be the main concern here. Just go with title if RS typically use the title, unless the BLP of a person who refuted it by abdication or dislike. To do otherwise would only cause surprise and confusion and force us to craft redirects. Mention both title and any refutation in the body in any case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a reconfigured proposal that takes COMMONNAME into consideration and separates the article title concerns from the main issue, which is inclusion of people claiming abolished titles in categories alongside legitimate holders of those titles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Still opposed. I think anything more than current guidance - COMMONNAME AND MOS:BIO - is not needed and not a good idea. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, but ideally with the proviso in Proposal 2: the proposal is sensible. Articles shouldn’t assert abolished titles.The proposal also doesn’t contradict COMMONNAME, since COMMONNAME was never a bright line or a rule. It’s just a general principle that the commonly used names usually best fit the also-not-a-rule five WP:CRITERIA. The explicit WP:COMMONNAME proviso for relatively unused alternative names makes sense though, as a clarification. — MarkH₂₁ 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Not convinced WP:COMMONNAME solves this currently; using a title in a Misplaced Pages article has substantial implications that are often not present or intended in the sources. Additionally, the sourcing that mentions these people is often relatively low-quality - they are famous only for having an abolished title, so it gets used a lot, but this doesn't really imply the wide acceptance that WP:COMMONNAME assumes such usage represents. Given the concerns unique to this particular subject it makes sense to have a specific note in the policy for it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - even if greater guidance is needed, this is not the way forward. While I am fairly appalled at the fawning tone on some "would-be-noble" articles, I'm not persuaded that this bureaucratic creep solves anything. It should be addressed by using COMMONNAME and clear text within the article itself. I'm also not persuaded that acknowledging that a 'pretender' title exists, and is sometimes used by sources is actually in any meaningful way asserting that either the title or position is real. We rely on text to distinguish between this Buffy and that one, and for that matter between 'entitled' princes and aristocrats and people merely coining these as their names or stage names. What's the problem doing the same for 'real' and 'pretender' aristocrats? Whether some way should be found of distinguishing real/nominal categories is another matter, ditto infoboxes, but inventing 'legal' names for pretenders largely known by their (albeit defunct) royal name is not a solution. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice; I prefer the reformulation below. As for why, I think Aquillion sums it up well, and in even shorter terms: per all three of the WP:CCPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, largely per Aquillon. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Deciding what a 'legal' name is just convolutes the problem and conflicts with WP:OFFICIAL. We have an established practice already:WP:COMMONNAME. Also oppose on creep grounds. Zindor (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. ~ HAL333 23:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (archdukes)

Splitting this into two questions and reformulating a bit (additional proviso italicized):

1. Titles should not be asserted in Wiki-voice after their abolition. Thus: article titles must not reflect titles that were abolished before accession. Implicitly, then, holders of titles current during their lifetimes should be identified by the title (e.g. Archduke Ferdinand) but holders of titles abolished before they were ever assumed (e.g. modern-day descendants of the Prince of Prussia) should be identified by the family name, with a suitable descriptive narrative describing succession. In situations where no alternative name is widely used in reliable sources, or where there is overwhelming RS usage of the title when referring to the subject, COMMONNAME considerations should apply, with the article body appropriately clarifying the title's legitimacy.

2. Timelines, navboxes etc should not ascribe titles of nobility to those who would only have assumed them after their abolition. In the Prince of Prussia example, descendants after the dissolution of Prussia should not be included in navigation templates etc. as holders of the abolished title of nobility. {{Infobox nobility}} and variants should be used for those who held titles of nobility up to and including the title's abolition, and {{infobox person}} or variant should be used for those who never held the title before its abolition. Edge cases such as crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession, or pretenders to recently abolished titles prior to establishment of a stable alternative, should be handled case by case.

1: Support. 2: Support. For the reasons I detailed previously. JoelleJay (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, if the title was for an actual office such as Emperor of Germany, King of Bavaria, or Duke of Saxe-Altenburg, where the reigning monarch abdicated and the office was abolished, then we should not describe their heirs as actually holding these offices. But I do not see any problem with using subsidiary titles, such as prince, for their heirs when that is how they are commonly known. And what about the Prince of Orange, who is heir to the Dutch throne? Orange is in France which abolished the the nobility. Or the Aga Khan? The title was bestowed by Iran, which has also abolished nobility. TFD (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Noble titulature doesn't have to correspond to an office for it to be privileged and substantive. Austrian archdukes had the power to ennoble people right up until 1918, with nobility sometimes receiving the right to a seat in the House of Lords--this is why the Adelsaufhebungsgesetz abolished all nobility ("as well as all noble privileges, titles and names in Austria"), not just the title of "Emperor". "Prince of Orange" has a well-documented history with specific treaties addressing who was allowed to use the title, including the retention of the title by the Dutch after the principality was ceded to France. There was no such title transfer for Austrian archdukes that would permit anyone to use that title in Austria. Because "Archduke of Austria" conferred certain recognized rights to its holders before 1918, it cannot be treated as if it is the same as the title held in pretense. Someone being commonly called by that title after it was abolished does not automatically transform the core historical definition and implications of the title for all the previous holders, which is what wikipedia would be doing if we were to categorize great-great-grandchildren born 100 years later as equivalent archdukes. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Grand Duke of Luxembourg uses various German titles including Duke of Nassau (his ancestor was deposed by Prussia in 1866). Does he need removing from Template:Dukes of Nassau then? Do we need to remove that and the German titles from his full title so we are not “Misplaced Pages’s voice” saying he is Duke of Nassau? The fact is titles are widely recognised and used post abolition, removing such persons from templates etc would seem to be an abuse of NPOV. How the Nassau template deals with the issue seems perfectly sensible and neutral, add an asterisk and some suitable text noting they were born after the legal abolition of the title. - dwc lr (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, there are well-documented decrees regarding title use and transfer within and between countries. When an extant monarchy officially and legally grants a title to one of its members, as with the Grand Duke of Luxembourg in 1890; or when it modifies the succession laws thereof; we have no issues characterizing those people as holders of that title. The government of Luxembourg officially recognizes its Grand Duke as a Duke of Nassau and has recent ducal decrees affirming that title. There is no ambiguity here, just like there is no ambiguity that the government of Austria does not grant or recognize the noble titles that it alone administered before 1918. For what it's worth, I also don't have a problem with Lorenz of Belgium using Prince of Austria-Este or whatever if the Belgian government has declared that an official Belgian royal title for him. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both: the proposal is sensible and the WP:COMMONNAME proviso for relatively unused alternative names makes sense. Articles shouldn’t assert abolished titles.The proposal doesn’t contradict COMMONNAME, since COMMONNAME was never a bright line or a rule. It’s just a general principle that the commonly used names usually best fit the also-not-a-rule five WP:CRITERIA. — MarkH₂₁ 07:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both.Smeat75 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose creep. Common name and handling case by case are already established practices. We've recently had a flurry of edits claiming that Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi is a count. We can handle them in the usual way within the current guidelines. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose creep. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to the argument from your !vote in the other proposal here (also pinging User:Markbassett, as this functions as a response to him as well).

Among the issues Guy and Smeat75 pointed out here, and that SMcCandlish described in the earlier discussion, was the lack of sufficient guidance on how to refer to descendants of abolished royal houses. This is not a style problem that can be solved case-by-case, because right now the default state of all such articles only reflects the monarchist POV by transcluding all info/navboxes related to the title and its holders, including the subject in all categories dedicated to the above, and attributing titles to them in every single instance they are mentioned. In the vast majority of cases, such entitlement is sourced exclusively to passing mention in a few royalty genealogy books published by nobility enthusiasts and pro-monarchy groups. ...I'm not persuaded that this bureaucratic creep solves anything. It should be addressed by using COMMONNAME and clear text within the article itself. Obviously COMMONNAME does exactly nothing to prevent this from happening elsewhere in the article; for example, in the last nine years since the RfM consensus to move "Archduke Karl of Austria" to "Karl von Habsburg", his infobox has been vacillating between "royalty" and "politician" and between including and excluding "Archduke" from the infobox header, while the royal categories have barely been affected.

I'm also not persuaded that acknowledging that a 'pretender' title exists, and is sometimes used by sources is actually in any meaningful way asserting that either the title or position is real. We rely on text to distinguish between this Buffy and that one, and for that matter between 'entitled' princes and aristocrats and people merely coining these as their names or stage names. The issue is not with acknowledging that some sources use a title for a person. It is with articles stating a person is a holder of the title by including them in royalty templates. It's even more of a problem when, based only on tabloids and genealogy books calling them "prince", we claim someone is a pretender to a throne, which implies active efforts by that person to restore a monarchy in potential violation of the law. "Clear text in the article" clarifying the status of the archduchy is welcomed, but it does not explain why Misplaced Pages discusses the person in question as if they were still entitled and privileged identically to 19th century royalty. Without independent secondary RS covering the deliberate use of abolished titles by/for a specific person, or multiple non-news RS examining its general usage w.r.t. the whole family, it is confusing synthesis to cite instances where it is used as the reason we have multiple royalty templates calling someone "Archduke of Austria" immediately adjacent to a sentence stating the archduchy and all titles are illegal. Incidentally, the source used for the claim that "some people still call Karl 'Archduke'" has the delightful Google-translated photo caption "The word "von" on the homepage www.karlvonhabsburg.at gave someone angry."

And because the templates often already include a post-abolition family member, for consistency and completeness's sake the rest of the family must be included, so a consensus on one person's page will be overridden by the status quo of a template. This applies to individuals without their own articles as well: when one guy with a page happens to have at some point been ascribed a title, all of his non-notable siblings (and their kids) will now have said title on various lists of issue/family trees. The lack of clear guidelines on these matters has led to unsourced navigation box disasters like Austrian archduchesses by descent, wherein 85 of the 93 individuals included in the generations after the monarchy was abolished have no article. It has led to titles for, e.g., Karl's son Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg being constantly added and removed, with both sides citing policy, for over a decade. And this is for someone with his own notable career unrelated to his ancestry; whose coverage pretty unambiguously indicates a non-noble COMMONNAME; whose claim to a title is disrupted not only by it having been constitutionally abolished and made illegal three generations earlier, but also by his grandfather formally renouncing all royal pretensions for himself and his heirs. If such parameters, in addition to the Misplaced Pages article on the title itself stating unequivocally that it no longer exists, are not sufficient criteria to bar a person from being called "archduke" in wikivoice and included in multiple royalty alongside those who actually held a substantive title, then what is? Is an abolished title just automatically, immutably afforded at birth to all descendants in perpetuity?

Whether some way should be found of distinguishing real/nominal categories is another matter, ditto infoboxes, but inventing 'legal' names for pretenders largely known by their (albeit defunct) royal name is not a solution. The main point of proposal 2.2 is how we should distinguish real from nominal titles... And 2.1 explicitly defers to COMMONNAME, particularly when no clear "real" alternative exists, rather than "inventing" a legal name. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• User:JoelleJay Thanks for the ping. Not a problem. If navbox is in conflict with COMMONNAME and with the article body, that’s not an issue of the proposed, that’s just picking a template that doesn’t match. Trying to instead rule which side in a disputed title is a “legal” one which runs counter to COMMONNAME or V or the person’s abdication choice just isn’t good. Otherwise, your feeling that COMMONNAME and abdication should be respected seems to match what I was suggesting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Markbassett -- COMMONNAME only affects the article title, though, not the rest of the body or how they are categorized. I would be (and have been) reverted immediately for removing someone from an archduke template whose consensus COMMONNAME does not include his title. And for the people whose COMMONNAME does have a title (or whose COMMONNAME hasn't yet been determined by consensus, but by default has the title), are they always eligible to be put in the "Titleholders of Country" navbox? This is the kind of slippery slope that has plagued these articles for a decade: editors will cite the Almanach and several tabloids that call Miguel LastName "Archduke Miguel" and conclude that is his COMMONNAME--and therefore that we can say he is an Archduke of Austria. But his brother Manuel, who is better known for his research career, is overwhelmingly called "Manuel LastName" by the academic press, making that his COMMONNAME. 100% of the time, he will still be included in all the "Archdukes of Austria" and "Austrian Princes" categories and navboxes, he will still have the royalty infobox periodically edit warred in, he will have several sections devoted to his familial orders and styles, and an ahnentafel will be inserted. Someone will track down his partner's birthdate and describe their parentage, and the full names and dates of birth of his non-notable children will be included as his "issue". However, if we didn't approach these articles with the POV that royal titles are immutable and passed on eternally, and instead defaulted to the century-old legal status of nobility that has been undisputed by the vast majority of the country and world, there would be no ambiguity as to whom Misplaced Pages can declare is an archduke. JoelleJay (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay COMMONNAME or “what is the usual name” is also a theme linking a wide variety of such concerns, for example the top hat there has See Also to WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and the existing policies and precedent in discussions involving names for people, including WP:OTHERNAMES, varied handling for unofficial names Queen Latifah versus “Duke” Ellington, whether to use or even mention names of drag queens being subject to that person’s wishes. So I continue to say COMMONNAME, unless the person abdicated or refuted the title, is enough to have and after that would be article-specific discussions. COMMONNAME has been useful for a wide variety of people. This thread seems still not a problem, or the described events not one of kinds not addressed by the proposal and not one needing new policy. Whether the article for Miguel uses the simple ‘Archduke Miquel’ or enquires it to show enquoted “Archduke” or keeps a disputed title or the title of an extinct kingdom and whether the title existed when the person it went extinct ... is going to face COMMONNAME at least in terms of what V is. Yes, there are a wide variety of situations for nobility titles and whether the title is used, even in the British royal family, but the proposal simply does not include enough detailing of specific categories to clear them up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett Thanks for the thorough response! However, I am still confused how COMMONNAME is supposed to apply to things other than the article title. The requirements for COMMONNAME just seem to be that it's (generally) the name most frequently used to refer to someone in RS unambiguously -- nowhere does it state COMMONNAME is governed by the same criteria used to determine if someone can be put in, e.g., the "physicians" categories or have an "academia" infobox, or vice versa. This is made obvious by the fact we have the article title Dr. Dre for a non-doctor, but he is still excluded from . JoelleJay (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay COMMONNAME here you can also read as short for WEIGHT of use and the general principles tied in with COMMONNAME. The general resolution for people seems to be use what WEIGHT is most common, with exceptions of respecting objections of personal choice - which for infobox royalty would be by abdication or their name change, not whether there was a change in government decrees. A practical issue to the proposal (beyond just involving hundreds of articles) is that anything else would have difficulty finding V and would be opposing WEIGHT plus requires OR for setting what is “legitimate”. The WP:VNT seems clearly siding with use what is COMMON. The NPOV guidance to portray all POVs in proportion to their WEIGHT similarly would seem guidance to use the WP:IB and hence prominence that goes along with WEIGHT. And WP:NCNOB similarly guides us to WEIGHT, with a section on defunct titles explicitly saying that for these situations. Outside of existing WP policy and guides, I will note that exceptions to that are commonly carved for BLP by declarations of the person, not just of ‘what do they use/answer to/acknowledge’, I think those are linking to the human right of identity in a family and personal choice. (I’m thinking there is something in WP, at least for LGBT about ‘deadnames’, but don’t recall the link.) And while WP should comply with the law, and certainly an article should mention any notable dispute about the title, I think the Austrian law simply does not limit the English WP.

I’m also just thinking about articles out there historically. Nobles have been deposed and later regained positions, and pages are just widely varying case by case, with no new policy - Juan Carlos I of Spain or Shah of Iran for example, and Princess Noor Pahlavi and Edward VIII or Prince Harry. I still think keep it simple, COMMONNAME (except for abdication or personal voice) and otherwise TALK it out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I see what you are saying now, but I disagree that it is OR or unverifiable to not treat a descendant of a legally abolished monarchy as if they still hold royal titles. Rather, the Constitution issuing said decree, and the body of literature surrounding the status of nobility post-abolition, are by far the most reliable sources possible for whether a royal title exists. The Republic of Austria is stable, undisputed, and recognized by every world government--there are no legitimate movements to restore the Habsburgs or any monarchy. This is true for many other republics that abolished monarchies. It is also the case that a much higher degree of verifiability than that used to weight COMMONNAME is required to assert the controversial, legally actionable claim that a living person holds a noble title in Austria this is obviously not a legal threat to you or Misplaced Pages. The clear majority of RS calling someone "Princess Marcella" is usually enough for it to be her article title, but it would be synthesis and OR, on top of non-neutral POV-pushing, to declare that this usage is a) explicitly rejecting a constitutional act (or even affirming a person's titulature at all) as opposed to just being a tabloid colloquialism, and b) these RS carry more WEIGHT than the RS that discuss titles being illegal or nonexistent. Please also note the COMMONNAME deficiencies described by Aquillion and the distinction between criteria used for article titles and what we can state is a substantive title acknowledged by Surtsicna in the other sections.

As for your concession that abdication or name change would affect the use of infobox royalty -- do you acknowledge that this would actually exclude all Austrian (and likely Czech and Hungarian) Habsburgs from having that infobox or being in any royal categories? None of them are officially known by a title or have a title in their legal name, and none of them assert that title. And would you permit the abdication of one member to affect the royal status of all his descendants? JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay Yes, I think that COMMONNAME aka WEIGHT with exceptions for BLP respecting the person’s choice is enough. If for example the Austrians repudiated claims then that’s already covered, no need for more. More than that - this proposal just is not limited to Austrians. There are just too diverse a set of circumstances and decisions out there to accept a “must” rule. It’s not just that the British royal family history. The Shah of Iran was deposed - and yet retained the title before being deposed again - and yet his descendant is still titled. The European crowns have gone into exile during wars - both losing their position by one government and at the same time recognised by another as noble. If the proposal only is looking at Austrians, it’s not needed. If the proposal is looking to be for everyone, then it needs to look for other cases. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, please see my comment here where I attempt to use such policies to dispute calling Karl von Habsburg an archduke or "pretender". At least five other participants in this RfC have used those and other policies dozens of times over the last 12 years, yet clearly a vocal minority disagrees with their application. You raise valid points about the other deposed royal families having more nuanced situations--although I think a broad proposal is still possible to combat the default stance of Misplaced Pages to unquestioningly afford these people titles in all cases. As you can see, there is resistance to changing how we discuss even the most clear-cut cases, where the subject in question has rejected using a title for himself or others, whose father renounced his and his successors' rights to any royal claims, who lives in his country of residence specifically on the condition that he affirms this renunciation, and whose country abolished all royalty and nobility and made it illegal for anyone to claim any titles over 100 years ago. My hope with this proposal was that the onus of sourcing/weight would shift onto those who want to include implicit support of monarchic roles: that editors would have to demonstrate an abolished title is still recognized beyond courtesy mention in magazine lifestyle sections or genealogies in order for someone to appear as an uncontested holder of that title. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JoelleJay I read that, and think my view differs at two points. First, in my ‘WEIGHT unless person declared otherwise’, there is no ONUS for a RS of Karl claiming the title - because if there is no Karl statements then WEIGHT gives a title (or not). That’s pro-WEIGHT, not pro- or anti-Nobility. Second, I apply that to each person separately — descendants might still be shown as ennobled after Karl abdicated, or not be shown as enobled despite what Karl’s article has. Yes, I expect legality and 100 years to be important - because I think that would affect what COMMONNAME is. But where they don’t then I would expect that to be viewed as WEIGHT which is emphasised. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Complete nonsense to say that the Almanach de Gotha is a “pro monarchy group” or that books on royalty are published by “nobility enthusiasts”. What’s your evidence for these unsubstantiated claims? - dwc lr (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The modern Almanach de Gotha includes multiple royalist activists from abolished monarchies among its "société des amis" and "comité de patronage" and styles them as if they hold a sovereign title. That is monarchist promotion. And who else besides a nobility enthusiast would publish royal genealogies? These are not academic works. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay Which ones are “royalist activists”? If they were given “sovereign titles” you’d have the King of Italy, Emperor of Brazil not those non sovereign lesser titles. Also presumably you consider the previous President of Germany to be a monarchist because he called Mr Franz von Bayern his Royal Highness? With regard publishing genealogies (I’m not even sure which books your supposedly referring too), I would assume a genealogist would engage in this work? Or perhaps a historian, or a lawyer with an interest in house laws, or even an academic. But these terms are probably too ‘up market’ to fit your narrative. - dwc lr (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both. This is not "creep", it is a necessary guide to a group of editors who, for whatever reason, favour the society pages over geopolitical sources when naming articles. There is a hierarchy of reliability in sources, and we are dfoing it wrong, and we need to stop. Guy (help!) 08:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both (and I prefer this proposal to the original one above). This is nowhere near CREEP, as this has been a very, very long-running and ingrained problem that involves all three of the core content policies, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and and WP:V (and its dependent WP:RS guideline).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (proposal 2, archdukes)

• Oppose policies already exist to deal with the issues, such as WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Common Name. - dwc lr (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  DWC LR, and this is necessary because COMMONNAME (a style guide) is being asserted ove r NPOV (one of the five pillars) in order to name articles as if people have titles of nobility that do not exist. Guy (help!) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• dwc lr Do you acknowledge there is a difference between someone being called "Archduke Karl" by some media, and actually being an archduke? JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• JoelleJay What’s your definition of an actual Archduke? Can you say who decides who is an Archduke, is there one body you defer too? The Belgian Royal Family say the husband of Princess Astrid is an Archduke, the Luxemburg Grand Ducal Family say the husband of Princess Marie Astrid is an Archduke. Are they Archdukes or are they mistaken? - dwc lr (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The relevant body would be the one which authorizes the privileges afforded by a noble title. As far as I can tell, the ruling bodies who determined the scope and usage of "archduke" are as follows:

1. 1358 to 1365: Duchy of Austria under Habsburg Duke Rudolf IV of Austria via forged Privilegium Maius (title not officially recognized by HRE).
2. 1365 to 1414: latent under Rudolf's younger brothers and their heirs, who split the duchy of Austria.
3. 1414 to 1424: Inner Austria under Ernest the Iron (asserts title).
4. 1424 to 1440: Inner Austria under Ernest's son Frederick V (latent).
5. 1440 to 1453: Duchy of Austria under Ladislaus the Posthumous, under guardianship of Frederick V (latent).
6. 1453 to 1457: HRE/Archduchy of Austria (latent). Frederick V is elected Emperor Frederick III of the HRE in 1452, formally recognizes the Privilegium Maius and elevates the Duchy to Archduchy, but doesn't authorize Ladislaus to use the title.
7. 1457 to 1804: HRE/Archduchy of Austria. Ladislaus dies, Frederick III consolidates Habsburg territories and becomes Archduke of Austria (but doesn't assert the title for himself). Frederick grants some other people the archduke title as well, and eventually his son Emperor Maximilian I uses it. Habsburg command of the HRE and Archduchy of Austria is pretty much unbroken (except Charles VII) for 350 years, with "archduke" being used by both the sovereigns of the Archduchy of Austria (who happen to also be Holy Roman Emperors) and cadet members of the Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine dynasties.
8. 1804 to 1806: Archduchy of Austria (under the HRE/Empire of Austria). HR Emperor Francis II founds the Empire of Austria and designates himself Emperor Francis I of Austria as well.
9. 1806 to 1815: Empire of Austria: HRE dissolved in 1806, but Francis retains imperial rule of the Empire of Austria and the archducal titles.
10. 1815 to 1867: German Confederation/Empire of Austria. Francis II also becomes President of the German Confederation, with the Empire of Austria being one of its confederate states. His descendants and nephews in the House of Habsburg-Lorraine succeed him in these roles.
11. 1867 to 1918: Austria-Hungary. The 1866 Austro-Prussian war results in the formation of Austria-Hungary, with Emperor of Austria Franz Joseph I becoming head of the dual monarchy.
12. 1919 on: The Austro-Hungarian Empire is constitutionally dissolved and all royalty and titles are abolished and outlawed. The other republics created from and/or receiving land from the breakup of Austria-Hungary have since affirmed or issued their own laws abolishing nobility. Thus, there is no successor state recognizing or authorizing the title of "Archduke" or its privileges.

From this we can conclude that "Archduke of Austria" was an inherited substantive title held by the Habsburg and Habsburg-Lorraine dynasties but always endorsed and recognized by their Austrian Head of State. Royalty sites and genealogy books consider only the first clause, treating the Habsburg House as synonymous with archducal titulature regardless of whether any substantive archducal privileges/power are conferred. But post-1918 "archduke" is empty: it has no legal authority whatsoever anymore, and those that claim it do not receive the government-issued benefits of any of their predecessors. We can of course acknowledge that some descendants are afforded courtesy titles by other states; however, we cannot assume this is blanket recognition of the titles, that such titles are always inherited (such that we can entitle any and all non-notable children of these descendants without having to demonstrate COMMONNAME), or that their attribution by other (monarchic) states meets the consensus required of an encyclopedia. Because they are disputed by the relevant governments, and because they no longer impose the powers they once granted, and further because their interpretation is now inconsistent and fractured, it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to treat identically pre-abolition titles and the titles as they are used now. JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay So what you’ve shown is the head of the Habsburg dynasty regulates the title and the title has nothing to do with a Head of State, there’s nothing in the constitution about it, the title is regulated by the Habsburg’s House Law. The head of the dynasty (a position you would presumably consider does not exist) to this day considers he has the power to decide who is an Archduke and has used this power to extended the title to any Habsburg born of a Christian marriage which means people who were not recognised as an Archduke (by the head of the dynasty and reliable sources like an Almanach de Gotha) now are. “it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to treat identically pre-abolition titles and the titles as they are used now.” Misplaced Pages doesn’t, on the Archduke template and in the articles there are notices stating the titles were legally abolished they are just courtesy titles etc. If there are aren’t go find sources and add them, problem solved? The policies to achieve what you want are already at your disposal why waste time on this? - dwc lr (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The head of state was the authority who granted the right to use the archducal title. That was the Holy Roman Emperor in the beginning. That the head of the house actually has the right to recognize the title regardless of sovereignty is a POV (which is fine, and can be reflected in the article). However, this requires RS explicitly confirming that the head of the house (Karl) does consider himself an archduke with the authority to dispense titles. According to our own sources, from which we directly quote Karl, he does not. And even if he did have royal pretensions, the article would have to give due weight to the opposing POV held by the government of Austria. Despite all this, Karl's article has: 1. Austrian Royalty: House of Habsburg infobox according him and his family royal titles. There is no mention in this template that for all the grandchildren of Charles I the title is only a courtesy (which is itself not actually sourced for all of them) and illegal to use in Austria. 2. Titles in pretense table, stating in wikivoice that he asserts a claim to not only the archduke title but also Emperor of Austria. Considering it is illegal for Karl to be a royal pretender in the country in which he lives, this contentious statement would require enormous sourcing to override BLP policies. And yet here it is, completely unsourced, making this claim for TWO living people! 3. Austrian archdukes navbox (pre-collaposed). If you expand this template and read the subheading text you will learn that titles of nobility were abolished in 1919. However, there is no way to tell when 1919 was within the template. Even having superscript annotation (like we do to identify the people who also have a pretend Tuscan prince title) to clarify who isn't legally an archduke wouldn't justify including all the unlinked non-notable people whose position on holding even a courtesy title is entirely unverifiable. 4, 5, & 6: Infobox royalty and the categories "archdukes of Austria" and "princes of Austria" are regularly edited back in and are present on numerous other family members' pages. The article as it stands absolutely furthers the non-neutral, unsupported POV that these modern Habsburg family members hold or at least claim to hold the same title as their ancestors. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would say there is a world of difference between Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt and Eduard, Prince of Anhalt. You might get some media calling Frédéric a ‘Prince’ but you wouldn’t get respected reliable sources like Almanach de Gotha and countless others which study dynastic house laws for titles, styles, succession rights. But of course such books would clearly be in the “fiction” category for many here. - dwc lr (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both. As an example of the issue here, Ferdinand Habsburg is a professional racing driver. He is legally and professionally known as Ferdinand Habsburg.

But we don't call him Ferdinand Habsburg. Our article title is Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg. Past article titles have been Ferdinand Zvonimir Habsburg-Lothringen and Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir of Austria. On Template:House of Habsburg-Lorraine after Francis I he is called Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir. The same title is implied by Template:Austrian archdukes. The old Template:Austrian Imperial Family referred to him as late as this year - and I wish I were joking on this - as His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke Ferdinand Zvonimir. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was abolished 79 years before he was born. And he's now old enough to be a pro racing driver.

Our article even claims Ferdinand Habsburg as a colloquialism. No, "Ferdie" is a colloquialism. "Ferdinand Habsburg" is his name.

If this is all sufficiently covered by WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME such that no further explanation were necessary, then this would not be a question. There would be no issue here. But the fact is that there are plenty of templates and articles out there that insist on calling this individual by something other than his legal and professional name. It is clear that further explanation is needed, and this proposal provides it. Kahastok talk 19:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per my reasons above. I think this proposal should solve the issue just as well as proposal 1. As for those opposing based on CREEP, I think some guidance from a centralized discussion now could save a lot of time and arguing later. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A bit too broad of a proposal given the disparity between what each person chooses to go by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:2CEE:E19E:E71F:BDD5 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you oppose both proposals, or just the one that deals with COMMONNAME (the article title)? JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (archdukes)

• This is a minor nitpick, but re "crown princes whose titles were abolished before accession" - I wouldn't consider reigning crown princes when a title goes defunct a particularly edge case - they clearly were a "real" crown prince at one point in time, so that kind of title is fine, as long as it's Crown Prince and not King. SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• SnowFire, yes, those are the edge cases, and we can handle them case by case (a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that). But let's not be deceived: Duke Ellington never claimed to be the Duke of Ellington, there never was a Duke of Ellington, so the stage name causes no confusion. Queen Latifah is not claiming to be queen of anywhere. The only real outlier there is Emperor Norton, and he was a very singular case. Even then we should probably use his birth name and say that he styled himself Emperor.

DrKay we have guidelines, and we have policies. Correct application of those has been resisted by (e.g.) those who want to claim that there is an Archduke Marcus of Austria. We have a mountain of really substantial sources that say Austria is a republic and that the archdukes were banished and their titles dissolved in 1918, so any proper assessment of sources will weigh that against the royalty fandom sources that pretend the archduchy persists, and reject them as fringe. However, that's not what's happening, so we need a specific guideline. Guy (help!) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that say Germany is a Republic, titles and styles don’t legally exist. There are also lots of sources that still recognise said titles and styles. Let’s look at the words of the previous Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany “Lieber Herzog Franz”, “Königliche Hoheit”. These aren’t words spoken in reference to a foreign royal but Mr Franz Prinz von Bayern/Herzog von Bayern (or whatever his “real name” maybe). Although the use of legally abolished titles really grinds the gears of some Misplaced Pages editors, the real world doesn’t care about this long established and widespread practice. Even I wouldn’t propose moving Otto von Habsburg to include his title because he was commonly known (Common Name) without it (certainly in his later years). We have enough policies in place to deal with these issues. - dwc lr (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Surtsicna, COMMONNAME is a style guide, not a policy. Policy is NPOV and V. Per NPOV and V, there are no archdukes of Austria, no princes of Prussia. Not since 1918. Guy (help!) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Guy, WP:COMMONNAME is not a style guide. It is indeed a policy. The notice on the top of the page clearly says: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy." Surtsicna (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna, It is not part of 5P. So we have a stylistic preference and genealogy RS set against geopolitical and historical RS that say the titles do not exist. A simple experiment could be arranged: see whether"His Imperial And Royal Highness" can actually order Austrian troops into battle. However, you are entirely correct that most of them should be nuked, especially now the handful of sources that provided much of the content are, by consensus, deprecated as unreliable. Guy (help!) 23:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Article titles is the sole policy of Misplaced Pages dealing with article titles and it makes it abundantly clear that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Downplaying it will not get us anywhere. Nowhere does it mandate the use of legal names or legal titles. It even explicitly states, under WP:NPOVNAME, that the "prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". Not that there appears to be any issue in the real world; nobody seems to be batting an eye about these people being called things they are legally not. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna, Who's the reigning Prince of Bavaria? Who's the reigning Emperor of Mexico? Who's the reigning Archduke of Austria? If your answer is anything other than "nobody", go back to square one. Guy (help!) 23:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone does not need to be the reigning Prince, Archduke, Emperor (etc) to commonly be named with those titles. Bonnie Prince Charlie was not a reigning prince after all... yet he is commonly referred to by that name. In fact, one does not even need to be royal or noble to be called a title... Duke Ellington was not actually the Duke of anything. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Duke Ellington and his supporters were not claiming he was the Duke of Ellington. There never was a Duke of Ellington and the position was never officially abolished, as it was with these deposed royal families. Comparisons with stage names are irrelevant. Continuing to refer to people as holders of royal titles after those positions have been officially abolished is ludicrous and misleading.I don't understand why people want to do it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Well said user:JzG!Smeat75 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And I totally agree with what User:Surtsicna says above "the vast majority of the articles should be deleted rather than renamed." There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles about people whose only claim to notability is that they are, for instance, the small child or teenaged offspring of the person who is the sister of the person who would be reigning Duke or King if there still were one. Sooooo ridiculous and I tried to have some of such articles deleted seven years ago but met fierce opposition and gave up. I am hopeful that things have changed somewhat. Smeat75 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Being a genuine lawful King of a country is a claim of significance and will avoid speedy deletion, but even a lawful King is not WP:Notable unless there is sufficient Reliable Source coverage. Pretty much the same goes for people with defunct titles, or people claiming relationship to defunct nobility. It would probably survive speedy delete, but insufficient Reliable Source coverage is (should be) an AFD-delete. I would hope any AFD-closer would be competent enough and self-confident enough to flat out disregard any !vote that amounted to empty royalty-fandom. "I like it" is not a valid keep rationale, and closes should not be a blind headcount of keeps/deletes. Alsee (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The proposer conflates two different types of titles: those that denote the holding of an actual office and those that don't. The Queen of the UK for example is an actual position that entails executive, parliamentary and judicial authority. If the UK became a Republic, that position would end and she would no longer be Queen. But the title of Prince of Wales, awarded to her heir apparent, implies no actual authority. Similarly the positions of emperor of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, etc. as well as dukes of various German duchies have been abolished and the titles should not be used. But it's less clear with the subsidiary titles such as Archduke of Austria or prince of a German duchy. Saying someone is Archduke of Austria does not imply they have any power and did not when there was an Austro-Hungarian Emperor. It only means that if Austria restored the empire that they would become emperor. But that is different from saying they actually are the emperor. So the default is COMMONNAME. If someone lives in a palace, travels the world as an archduke and is usually referred to as Archduke of Austria, then that is what they should be called. TFD (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The proposal text also conflates two ideas, that WP should not ASSERT a 'dead' title - with which we probably nearly all agree - and we should not acknowledge a title, even when sources do. This lady is still known by the surname of a man to whom she is not married - how is that different from a 'pretender' being known by a noble family title that no longer means anything? Existing policies should be able to deal with this.Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support this. My problem is pretty simple: use of {{infobox royalty}} and transl;ated royal titles for people who were born after the thrones and princedoms were abolished and who have adopted those former titles as family names in their native language, which is then lazily translated or abbreviated gioving the false impression of a contiuning royal line. It's a parallel reality that is assiduously promoted by a walled garden of nobility fandom sites (most of whihc are now recognised as unreliable for WIkipedia) and society / gossip pages. The few cases where serious sources exzist, they note the inactive nature of the titles. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Question ... it is possible for a title to be considered obsolete (or even illegal) in one country, but still recognized by another. I think of the Greek ex-royals and their status in the UK. How should we deal with this? Are they still considered princes (or whatever) as long as SOME country recognizes them as such? Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• See Baron de Longueuil: "The Queen has been graciously pleased to recognize the right of Charles Colmore Grant, Esquire, to the title of Baron de Longueuil, of Longueuil, in the province of Quebec, Canada. This title was conferred on his ancestor, Charles Le Moyne, by letters-patent of nobility signed by King Louis XIV in the year 1700." TFD (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not relevant since Elizabeth II is still queen of Canada. Genuine question: does the queen recognise anyone as e.g. king of France, or emperor of Brazil? PatGallacher (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per NPOV and what JzG said. The use of some titles, and worse, styles such as "His Royal Highness" for any German after 1919 is somewhere between laughable and offensive. Some nobles do of course have titles ("Doctor" is one of the more common ones), which usually don't belong into the article name. —Kusma (t·c) 15:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi Riots

In article 2020 Delhi Riots there are violations of NPOV. NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." While in the article lead, in there are two following lines which violate this.

1. "Muslims were marked as targets for violence."

2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males— who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised."

Both the statements in RS are in quote attribution to someone else. What is anecdotal in the Reliable Source is presented as an overarching fact in the article. I had discussions on the talk page, but the only reply given is that the source is reliable, which is not even the discussion. Request resolution. Notice to editors -SerChevalerie and Slatersteven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

, , , , , and that is just for starters.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If we are considering news articles then , must be taken into account. Both these news items completely contradict the opening statements in the current version of the said article. This issue is currently under active investigation. Thus, it would not be wise to make statements based on any of the recent news pieces. Cwarrior (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree and there should be edit about involvement of Tahir Hussain (politician) in Riot instead of Kapil Mishra as Tahir Himself admitted that he was involved in 2020 Delhi riots using his political power, he admitted that he wanted to teach Hindus a lesson through riot, pogrom and arson, Kapil Mishra has no such involvements as he is only accused by some people but Tahir Hussain (politician) is the one who accepted his crimes. Should add a section about this too to maintain WP:NPOV Branstarx3 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

1. "Tahir Hussain's confession on Delhi riots: 'Wanted to teach Hindus a lesson'". www.timesnownews.com. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
2. "Tahir Hussain confesses role in Delhi riots; says 'wanted to teach Hindus a lesson'". Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
3. "Delhi riots:Suspended AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain's two employees key witnesses against him". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
4. "Tahir Hussain admits to planning north-east Delhi riots: Police report". Hindustan Times. 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
5. Bedi, Aneesha (2020-08-03). "Ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain 'confessed' he planned Delhi riots, police says in report". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-08-14.

More updates on this issue today: " The court said the riots took place in a “planned manner”, resulting from a “well-hatched conspiracy”", and “Hussain also facilitated them to the rooftop of his building and provided other logistics support with a view that large-scale riots may be there, causing resultant loss to life and the property of the other community… Prima facie the accused Tahir Hussain was leading the mob from his house and also from the Masjid near Chand Bagh Pulia on February 24 and 25, and he was instrumental for gathering of the unlawful assembly in conspiracy with accused persons, namely Haseen (alias Salman), Nazim, Kasim, Sameer Khan, Anas, Firoj, Javed, Gulfam and Shoaib Alam, having common intention and unlawful object,” Cwarrior (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

sexism regarding artcles "men going their own way" as well as "deletion of the gendernutral "battered person syndrome"

the article "me going their own way" has been warring. users declaring the movement is anti feminist as well as misogynist instead of making claims that the "movement" has links to anti-feminism, misogyny and so fourth

an other concern is an article pertaining to domestic abuse has been deleted or redirected to an an article with a feminist bias instead of a being gender neutral.

sincerely

Richard Stallman

The Richard Stallman article is biased to an absolutely astonishing level, of which I have never seen before on this website. I have currently restored a previous version of the particular section but it has already been reverted once and I expect it will be reverted again. The section in question can be seen in this diff and regards the statements Stallman made related to the Jeffrey Epstein situation last year. The linked version is quite obviously written from the perspective of someone who has adopted Stallman's stance and is not only defending him but is actively advancing his stance. It is incredible to me that this has been publicly available on wiki for what seems to be a period of months. I think this will be obvious to anyone who reads it and I ask for your assistance in ensuring the previous version is not again restored. Thanks. Lazer-kitty (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide concrete evidence supporting your claims? They sound like nothing more than personal opinions to me. The revision that you are trying to revert has more details and seems more accurate (based on the provided sources). Considering that this is a BLP, information regarding controversies should be as detailed explained as possible. daveout 23:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You are the person reverting the article to the most insanely biased version I have ever seen. Honestly, PLEASE, someone needs to look at this. This is ridiculous. Lazer-kitty (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This probably should be at BLP/N , but regardless: The version that Daveout is restoring uses BLPSPS (LaPorte News a self-published YouTube channel, as well as a github archive) and leaves quotes unsourced (though implied to be to an email thread. Further, the version tries to craft an argument against Stallman's logic about what assault is, which is absolutely against NOR particularly when a BLP is involved. One can use whatever logic covered by that Wired article as the point of reference to explain the fallacies, but WP editors cannot bring in their own arguments to that which Daveout's version is doing (in addition to unallowable sources). --Masem (t) 00:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Can you please revert AVRS's change and lock the page? I'm not sure what actions you feel are necessary but to me it is absolutely unacceptable to publish this kind of propaganda. I would violate 3RR to revert again but frankly I'm willing to take that bullet at this point. Lazer-kitty (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lazer-kitty, geez, calm down. Can you specify what exactly you find so biased and unacceptable in the article? daveout 07:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You absolutely know what you're doing. The article quite obviously and intentionally takes Stallman's side and advances his own argument. At one point someone even added - and commented out, thank god - a line claiming BILL GATES was behind all of it. It's outright propaganda and it's disgusting.

@Masem: I don't want to force the issue and I know you're busy but I kind of think time is of the essence here, we cannot keep crap like this up on an encyclopedia. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bill Gates? I really don't know what you're talking about. To me, it looks like the problem is this: Stallman was "cancelled" last year, and as we know, "cancellers" are never satisfied unless those that they are trying to cancel are portrayed as Satan. daveout 13:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The version of the article you keep restoring includes a commented out line accusing Gates of being behind the criticism of Stallman. And the second part of the above comment is absolutely astonishing and perfectly illustrates why you have no business crafting any part of this article. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an obviously improper HIDDEN note. But as the name suggests, it is not promptly visible and I probably missed it because I was busy reading the visible part of the text.daveout 20:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made changes to the article. (including adding quotations inside inline citations.) tell me what you think. daveout 11:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Lazer-kitty's preferred version frames Stallman's words to claim that he was rationalizing something and to take them out of context to make them sound as bad as possible, almost like the outright falsehoods in the media did; e.g. some of his isolated words actually mostly consisted of a quotation, but he hadn't used quotemarks there. As to the statement using self-published sources (LaCorte News is supposedly by a former Fox News executive, but I don't remember if I checked that): for the fact that his critics misquoted him right after quoting him, start by looking at Gano's original blog post for that; the other source combines links to other misleading articles (although having such a list on Misplaced Pages is probably not good because of that) and to Stallman's misquoted posts and their sources. If you cannot interpret at all, you could as well remove all hyperlinks from Misplaced Pages. Rather than asking for explanations though, preferably look at the edit history and edit summaries. --AVRS (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem. You are correct: those sources are unacceptable for BLP and they have been removed. I didn't analyse every source in depth before, the revision I was trying to preserve simply appeared to be more detailed. To be fair, Lazer-kitty didn't complain about the sources and is not doing a good job at explaining the bias claim. daveout 07:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As a fresh starting point, I have tried to write that whole section more neutrally but keeping all the salient points from the RSes. Note that I don't descend into all the rigors of what the definition of "assault" or "rape" is, just that that was part of the email chain and thus raise numerous eyebrows and why his past writings were looked at. (eg we are not either working to defend or argue against his comments on the thread itself), only making sure his post-resignation comments are fairly accurate. --Masem (t) 14:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your revision. I agree with AVRS that sensationalist publications are misquoting Stallman and that those mischaracterisations are reflected in previous revisions of the article. For instance, stating that Stallman wrote that Giuffre "presented herself to him as entirely willing" without explaining that he also said that she was being coerced and harmed by Epstein (and therefore, not "entirely willing") seems misleading to me. We should avoid interpreting Stallman's words and voicing 3rd party interpretations, we should preferably present Stallman's own words instead. Reading the full thing without editorialization gives us a completely different impression.daveout 14:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much the 3rd party interpretations but that 3rd parties took note of it his language, as WPians taking his words as a primary source and trying to craft the logic is also OR and potentially NOR. Fortunately, the Guardian coverage gets to the section where he states "she was harmed" from the email chain, which I have included just now, to show that he was still critical of Epstein. What the version you or AVRS were trying to do was dig further into Stallman's explanation and explain point by point, which no RS does, that I can see. They just point out his comments, for the most part, that balk at the idea about the "willing" factor. It's not WP's role to try to give Stallman's arguments any fairer assessment than the media has given him, and I believe what I wrote is a neutral assessment that gives his arguments the benefit of doubt to what the RSes say, no more, no less. --Masem (t) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Since Daveout reverted again (this now approaching admin action, and I am now too involved to do steps), I will point out his claim that "no reliable source claims Stallman defended Minsky" (as I had written) is wrong: Wired "Stallman put himself in the path of that outrage by contributing to a CSAIL mail thread defending the late artificial intelligence guru Marvin Minsky." . Daveout, you need to recognize your preference version is far far away from what neutrality is on WP and engages in synthesis and OR. --Masem (t) 01:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Why can't you just revert the page to your version? What is happening here? I feel like I'm talking to a multiple brick walls. This is easy to solve, the admins here simply refuse to do so. Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be an improper use of the admin broom, I feel at this point. --Masem (t) 03:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: It is more acceptable to you to allow Misplaced Pages to be co-opted for propaganda purposes? I'm sorry but I just don't understand that. This article in its current state is an embarrassment to any remaining respectability this website has. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thre are processes to be followed and using admin bits to "win" certain things when involved is not allowed, period. --Masem (t) 14:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:Ok, but that source wasn’t in the paragraph when I checked it. We now have one source saying that Stallman defended Minsky. The Guardian and Business Insider are careful enough to use the words “appeared to…” before the claim, as in “Stallman appeared to defend...”. The Washington Post is careful enough to attribute that impression to others, as in “Stallman questions struck some colleagues as an attempt to downplay…”. The Boston Globe and Ars Techinca avoid making such conjectures entirely. What WIRED is doing is trying to GUESS Stallman’s intentions. We shouldn’t jump the gun and turn an “appeared to” into a “did” when nearly all sources avoided doing so. If we are going to do that, I feel that we should at least attribute the claim.

The Boston Globe’s article is a good example of how to cover the matter, they emphasized Stallman’s own words (featuring complete quotations) instead of interpretations and guesses. That’s what I meant before, I definitely wasn’t suggesting that we should engage in original research in order to explain his views.daveout 08:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Just one last comment: could you specify where exactly is there wp:or in the article? I believe you are referring to this sentence: ("assault" on its own usually refers to actual violence or threats, not nominal, while "sexual assault" is also applied to non-statutory rape) which was not the best way to report this statement made by Stallman : The word ‘assaulting’ presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. . I’ve already removed that sentence. The disputed versions are now very similar, I wouldn’t mind implementing your revision but I prefer AVRS’s as a starting point instead, the main difference is that the present version includes full quotations. And since Lazer-kitty accused me of being trollish, I want to point out that I’m not the one here who was recently blocked and attempted to evade it through sock puppetry. Daveout (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This diff right before you removed what I wrote has the wired source at ref 124, it was there. The OR still includes the fact you are directly going to a 2003 source (about Richard Pyror) as a WPian to include. Yes, in the actual event, people did go back and pull out things, but it is not our place to go further unless the lines are explicitly drawn for us. And overall, there's far too much focus on quoting Stallman and not the situation around the events to this point (eg understanding WHY there was a email thread going on , and thus why he was speaking about Minsky, and how fast it went from Vice's publication to his resignation). --Masem (t) 14:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I specifically said that "that source wasn’t in the paragraph when I checked it.". And since your version is now reinstated I think you should fix that. (but i still think that it is best to avoid claiming that Stallman defended Minsky and full quotations should be included. Accuracy is very important in sensitive cases like this one). Daveout (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify: that source was there before AND AFTER my revision. Your comment could give the false impression that I had removed the source. The problem is that you claimed that Satllman defended Minsky but didn't provide inline citation corroborating that. I just wanted to be on the safe side. Daveout (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I want to apologise for aggressively reverting your revision before. That was extremely rude of me. I appreciate your efforts to mediate and solve this dispute. So thank you. I was just overwhelmed by Lazer-kitty's confrontational attitude. Anyway, I've added these lines to the text: 1) Stallman's words were perceived by some as an attempt to downplay sexual exploitation and minimize Minsky's alleged involvement. and 2) A joint statement signed by 33 GNU project developers classified Stallman's behavior as being alienating and advocated his departure from the project.. I've also fixed the William Pryor's reference that you mentioned above. Hope this will settle or at least attenuate this dispute. -- Daveout 16:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: Sorry to bother you again (this is the last time, i promise) but this is very important. I just want to ask whether you still think that my revision, with all the corrections I've made (including corrected inline citations), is still in violation of WP:NPOV? Take a second look please, it's a short read: (Shortcut). This will greatly facilitate future agreements regarding this matter.-- Daveout 11:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris Heaton-Harris

Clive Wynne Candy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently come onboard to edit the biography of Chris Heaton-Harris, a UK MP. Specifically, he seeks to add content regarding Heaton-Harris' support of multi-level marketing based on as speech the MP delivered in Parliament in support of the UK branch of the Direct Selling Association. Based on this screed posted at Talk:Chris Heaton-Harris, Candy clearly has a axe to grind regarding the MLM business model, and seeks to denigrate Heaton-Harris based on a perceived support of that industry. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What I have posted are true and accurate statements supported by quantifiable evidence (principally, the Parliamentary record, Hansard) which WikiDan61 has removed and characterised as being an attempt to denigrate Chris Heaton-Harris. Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Clive Wynne Candy: What you have added are your own interpretations of Heaton-Harris' speech. In his speech, he makes no mention of MLM, instead speaking on behalf of one particular entity, the DSA. Rather, you chose to introduce MLM into the narrative based on your own desire to denigrate Mr. Heaton-Harris as a "supporter of MLM", which you view as an inherent evil (based on this edit) rather than the perfectly legal business model that it is. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Tahir Hussain provoked his community to riot, says Delhi court". The Indian Express. 2020-08-23. Retrieved 2020-08-23.
2. "Daily Hansard". House of Commons of the United Kingdom. 13 January 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2020.

Since you have already accepted that all significant members of the UK DSA operate MLM schemes, the proposition that Heaton-Harris was not speaking in support of MLM, but of the DSA, is a distinction without a difference. Heaton-Harris' words are there for anyone to read in the Parliamentary record. Obviously, I have reported them accurately and I made no suggestion in my edit as to the motives of Heaton-Harris for uttering them. 'Inherent evil' is a phrase that you have introduced and falsely-ascribed to me. Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that all it operates?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Please explain your question? Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Clive Wynne Candy: I think Slatersteven intended: does the DSA do anything else, or does it just support MLM as a business model? (At which point, one might ask, why doesn't it call itself the Multi-Level Marketing Association?) WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, I thought it was obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Single level, traditional direct selling of cheap and cheerful consumer goods (aka. door to door peddling) based on value and demand, doesn't really exist anymore. It died out with the arrival of supermarkets, wide-ownership of automobiles and lately Online shopping. During this protracted death, the 'MLM' phenomenon effectively stole the identity of direct selling. Today there are DSAs all over the globe, but originally (prior to WWII) this was an American association which comprised traditional direct selling companies, like 'Kirby Brushes.' The original American DSA introduced common-sense rules which protected non-salaried sales agents from competition. Thus, the number of agents was limited to geographically defined enclaves so that they each had a chance of finding sufficient customers to have a reasonable chance of making a living. Today's DSAs comprise companies that set absolutely no common-sense limits on the numbers of non salaried agents being recruited. In fact, MLM companies offer non-salaried agents comission-payments on their own purchases and on on those of their recruits and on those of the recruits of their recruits, etc. ad infinitum. When rigorously investigated it has been discovered that virtually no declared MLM sales have been to members of the general public based entirely on value and demand. They have been to persons under contract to the MLM companies, based on the false expectation of future reward. Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page of the Heaton-Harris article, a document was linked from the DSA itself in which they state that >99% of their members operate so-called MLM models. So yeah, that is effectively all they do. If it is such a ‘widely-accepted’, and ‘perfectly-legal’ business model as is claimed on that same talk page, I really do not understand why it would be such a problem that the terms are used interchangeably, as the DSA does itself.StanTwoCents (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Which link?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be this one: . Here is how that document is referenced also on the multi-level marketing page. “The Direct Selling Association (DSA), a lobbying group for the MLM industry, reported that in 1990 only 25% of DSA members used the MLM business model. By 1999, this had grown to 77.3%. By 2009, 94.2% of DSA members were using MLM, accounting for 99.6% of sellers, and 97.1% of sales.”StanTwoCents (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "DSA Report" (PDF). Direct Selling Association. 2009. Retrieved 5 August 2020.

"US", "2009". So how is this referring to a UK association in 2015? Please read wp:synth.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

True. Do you have anything to suggest that the situation is different in the UK or that this situation changed in any meaningful way since 2009? I could raise the point that the DSA UK website lists 39 current members, and that all of these members according to themselves and/or Misplaced Pages operate MLM compensation plans, but then I would probably be asked to provide evidence that they already did so in 2015, and/or that they also do this in Mr Heaton-Harris’ constituency, so I will refrain from doing so.StanTwoCents (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this is what the DSA UK says when asked what Direct Selling is, nothing more: “Many Direct Selling companies are now organised on multi-level principles. This is where Direct Sellers are given the opportunity to build their own sales teams, in addition to the rewards from making personal sales.  In doing so, they are able to receive additional rewards that come from the sales achieved by those they have recruited, trained, helped and motivated.“StanTwoCents (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "DSA UK website". Direct Selling Association United Kingdom. 2020. Retrieved 5 August 2020.

Might I point out the blindingly-obvious fact that there are no significant traditional single tier direct selling compnanies still operating in the UK. This type of enterprise has long since vanished due to market forces. Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

May I point out wp:or and your only source is neither about the UK or even uo to date with the comment by the MP. This is now getting wp:tendentious and I am asking you to WP:DROPIT.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue at hand here is not whether the DSA membership consists of MLM companies or not, but rather whether MLM companies are inherently bad. Candy has tried to point out that Heaton-Harris' support of the DSA is problematic because it ignored the accepted overall 99+% net-loss/churn rates for participation in MLM schemes, and repeated unsupported statistics from the UK DSA - openly claiming that: member companies of the UK DSA were providing UK citizens (approximately 400 000, 75% of whom are women) with an opportunity to start their own businesses and earn significant income; making a significant contribution to the UK economy; reducing unemployment; etc. Heaton- Harris also described how employees of the UK DSA had been regularly promoting MLM participation as a secure and viable route to enter the world of business and earn income, to students attending Northampton University. The facts he asserts that Heaton-Harris ignored are not verified by any sources, and appear to be used to denigrate Heaton-Harris. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

How is that the issue at hand? You yourself have stated on the talk page that MLM is widely-accepted and perfectly-legal (also does not sound entirely neutral, by the way), but still felt using the terms direct selling and multi level marketing interchangeably, as the DSA does itself, was problematic in the light of Misplaced Pages guidelines.StanTwoCents (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@StanTwoCents: A) I'm not aware that the DSA uses the terms "direct selling" and "multi-level marketing" interchangeably, and if I have used them that way, it has been by mistake. My understanding is that direct selling refers to any business model in which consumers or other non-professional salespeople sell products directly to other consumers. MLM is simply one model of doing this. And MLM is not inherently bad or illegal, despite the fact that some bad actors have played in this industry. B) My point in raising this discussion is Candy's attempt to denigrate Heaton-Harris based on his support of the DSA, because Candy (and apparently also Stan) do not like MLM and have an axe to grind against the industry and one of its players. This attempted denigration is the crux of the neutrality problem, and it is the only matter that should be up for discussion in this forum. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would I have an axe to grind with a business model that is apparently perfectly legal and widely accepted (on your say so), with ‘only a few bad apples’? It might just be me, but it sounds like you have more than just a casual opinion on the matter yourself. For me, the discussion is not whether or not MLMs are bad news - but whether or not it is ok for Candy to equate direct selling to multi level marketing in the context of Heaton-Harris’ speech in parliament. I absolutely do not see how that could even be considered a neutral point of view issue, as the DSA - whichever country it operates in - lobbies virtually exclusively on behalf of MLM companies, and uses the terms interchangeably in its literature and on its website. By arguing it is somehow unacceptable to publicly associate Heaton-Harris with MLM, you are the one that implies that that is a bad thing, not Candy nor me.StanTwoCents (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@StanTwoCents: The exact words that Candy added to the article included: During the course of his speech, Heaton-Harris ignored the accepted overall 99+% net-loss/churn rates for participation in MLM schemes, and repeated unsupported statistics from the UK DSA - openly claiming that: member companies of the UK DSA were providing UK citizens (approximately 400 000, 75% of whom are women) with an opportunity to start their own businesses and earn significant income; making a significant contribution to the UK economy. This language is not neutral. I can't explain my point more clearly. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: All due respect, but that is not the issue you brought here. If the guidelines have a legitimate issue with the language that is used, it should be amended. If there is an issue with sources, those should be added or verified. To my knowledge, the 99% is well-documented and referenced on the multi-level marketing page, and Mr Heaton-Harris is not misquoted in that fragment, was he? The goal here should not be to debate the validity of some controversial business model, but rather to provide accurate content about Heaton-Harris, right?StanTwoCents (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@StanTwoCents:, you and @Clive Wynne Candy: apparently have one view of what constitutes a neutral point of view and I have a differing view. That is why the issue has been brought here, so that others can weigh in. I can see no point in us continuing to bang heads, and I will cease replying to you or Clive. Should any other participants in this discussion require my input, please ping me. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I am one of those others weighing in. My apologies that I do not agree with you, but neutral does not mean ‘the way I see things’. Statements should have a strong base in evidence. Have a nice day.StanTwoCents (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

StanTwoCents, it is interesting to ponder: where on Misplaced Pages does ignorance-based amorality/neutrality end, and knowledge-based morality begin?

The man who drafted the US federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act 1970, is Prof. G. Robert Blakey.

Blakey was once contracted to offer his expert opinion of the original MLM company, Amway. Blakey's evidence-based opinion is contained in this linked-document https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Amway/blakey_report.pdf

Blakey's opening statement, and indeed the rest of his opinion, was based on his many years studying and combatting the complex phenomenon of organized crime in the USA. He is widely-considered to be one the greatest living experts on the subjet.

"It is my opinion that the Amway business is run in a manner that is parallel to that of major organized crime groups, in particular the Mafia. The structure and function of major organized crime groups, generally consisting of associated enterprises engaging in patterns of legal and illegal activity, was the prototype forming the basis for federal and state racketeering legislation that I have been involved in drafting. The same structure and function, with associated enterprises engaging in patterns of legal and illegal activity, is found in the Amway business."

According to Hansard, Heaton-Harris spoke at length in the UK parliament in effusive praise of Amway in particular. His only source of information on Amway was evidently persons of his aquaintence who are long-time adherents of Amway. Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not deal in morality we deal in verifiability. Find a source that explicitly says he supports MLM.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to what you imagine I have written, I was not asking for Wikipedians to abandon moral relativity, I was pondering where on Misplaced Pages does ignorance-based amorality/neutrality end, and knowledge-based morality begin? Obviously, readers of Misplaced Pages are free to make their own moral judgements, but in order to make such judgements, they need first to be fully-informed. That should be the role of Misplaced Pages. As for verifiability - below you can read Heaton-Harris' own words which are to be found in my linked reference to Hansard. Heaton-Harris was speaking in effusive support of Amway (which is the original MLM company and upon which all other MLM companies have been copied). His only source of information on Amway/MLM was evidently persons of his aquaintence who are long-time adherents of Amway. This quantifiable evidence proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Heaton-Harris has, in effect, placed a scripted-endorsement of Amway/MLM in the parliamentary record. I have merely reported these matters truthfuly and accurately, and I have made absolutely no suggestion in my edit as to why Heaton-Harris did this. I have certainly expressed no moral judgement of Heaton-Harris' behaviour in my contribution. That said, for reasons best-known to him/herself, WikiDan61 has pretended that, in my contribution, I have characterised MLM as being 'inherently evil' and that I have 'an axe to grind' (some sort of hidden sinister motive) for doing this.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150113/halltext/150113h0002.htm "In the time remaining, I will say a bit about the benefits of self-employment, and specifically about the opportunities in direct selling, including opportunities for female entrepreneurship. With the help and sponsorship of Amway, one of the biggest direct sellers, I have hosted a lunch and an afternoon tea in Parliament on the subject with some of the great and good of politics from the House of Lords, the House of Commons and local government, and business representatives and some amazing female entrepreneurs and their advocates.

"Amway is the world’s No. 1 direct selling company, established in 1959, and Amway business owners operate in more than 100 markets around the world. There are more than 40,000 Amway business owners in the UK alone, selling products across a wide range of industries including skin care, cosmetics, hair care and so on. One good example of an Amway business owner is Brenda Wills. She and her daughter Sally Brinner have been working as distributors for Amway for more than 30 years. Sally was introduced to the business by her parents, who started their Amway business together in the mid-80s, and they have worked together in the industry ever since."

"Sally’s parents were drawn to the prospect of owning a business that offered independence, flexibility and a chance to earn a living on their own terms. Some 30 years later, Brenda is still working from home and enjoying an income aged 81, and Sally and her own 27-year-old daughter Victoria, who has been an Amway business-owner since the age of 18, are now driving the business forward. That means three generations of the same family are part of this entrepreneurial industry, which sells products globally."'' Chris Heaton-Harris.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/94afc761-e7b8-41b9-9f1d-2c284b5cadc7 Heaton Harris' parliamentary speech can be watched on this link at 16:43:18. The video remains linked as a 'credible' endorsement of MLM/direct selling on Amway's own Website http://www.e-sendit.co.uk/amway/week87/uk/index.html#article-9

Amway's own website describes Heaton-Harris' parliamentary speech as:

"Some credible positive messages and promotion of direct selling which included Amway."

Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Note he says direct selling not MLM, all this means he may not know what he is talking about. Not that he supports MLM, so does my OR beat yours?Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Heaton-Harris carefully avoided the controversial term 'MLM,' is conclusive evidence that his 'positive' speech was given to him by MLM promoters. I would fully-agree that if (given the abundance of quantifiable evidence/rational analysis publicly available concerning the hidden catastrophic overall net-loss/churn rates for MLM/direct selling participation) Heaton-Harris still sincerely believes MLM/direct selling companies like Amway to offer a viable opportunity for UK citizens to earn income, then he is probably far too stupid to be held to account. Having said all that, Heaton-Harris has definitely given a speech in support of MLM/ direct selling in general, and of Amway in particular. Whether or not he has any understanding of this, is an entirely different matter. However, Heaton-Harris cannot plead ignorance, because his eyes-wide-shut behaviour in regard to the MLM/direct selling phenomenon has been openly-criticised on the Net and, true to form, he has refused to engage with persons criticising him.

https://www.talentedladiesclub.com/articles/why-were-appalled-that-an-mp-and-government-minister-promoted-mlms-like-amway-in-parliament/

Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Or that he did not make the link. That is the point we wp:or and why we have wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a little sad. Per Misplaced Pages, Amway (short for "American Way") is an American multi-level marketing company that sells health, beauty, and home care products. Agreed upon by the NY Times, Time Magazine , Huffington Post, Academia, oh and Amway itself . But I know, I know - was that also the case in 2015 and in the UK? StanTwoCents (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/business/amway-china.html
2. https://time.com/5864712/multilevel-marketing-schemes-coronavirus/
3. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/multilevel-marketing-companies-mlms-cults-similarities_l_5d49f8c2e4b09e72973df3d3?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLnNlLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKcxti2NQ9i0w_x3ZXfzAxLiqHY1dY4dU8m8I00aXrfgdBbeve_6aExI5nIe3E0n7eBcQBPOW12GjQkRMNC-HgR24IOVXNDew-2fCYY2RBK9-DLVYow4uTjBIz_f4KTi2LXaynOmclv48A9f6wgHgdgbMbh6dZtghzpfaXwuCEQm
4. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13648470.2015.1057104?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=canm20
5. https://support.amway.com.au/hc/en-au/articles/333756993476-Another-Multi-Level-Marketing-company-is-approaching-my-IBOs-and-damaging-Amway-s-reputation

I did not know who they were till this thread, and maybe he does not really know who they are. There is no education or intellectual requirement to be an MP, they can be as thick as me.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on, according to that speech he knows a whole lot about them. Moreover, if I support Trump not knowing which party he is from, do I then not support a Republican president - albeit unwittingly? StanTwoCents (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No he knows what they have told him. You need him talking about (excellent) MLM's or an RS making the connection, not you. Read ], MP's often jump on anything that makes them look good without checkingSlatersteven (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Should I point out that that article is from months later, not about Amway, and about a completely different MP? This is getting wp: sad. You know very well it is not original research that Direct Selling and Amway are MLM, whatever that might entail. How neutral is your point of view? StanTwoCents (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

wp:or and wp:v are very clear, we only say what RS explicitly say, not what we interpret them as saying. So until this argument stop relying on purely OR I will not respond, and just assume will I say I oppose this addition.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The argument about whether or not Heaton-Harris knows that Amway is an MLM company is irrelevant. The point of this neutrality forum discussion is to point out that Clive Wynne Candy was not editing neutrally when he added this information to Heaton-Harris' biography, but instead was trying to malign the MP based on the MP's support of a business model that the editor does not like. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If you had simply followed WP:DRP and amended the wording, all of this could have been avoided. Instead you violated WP:SRI and WP:PA and levied a baseless sockpuppet allegation against me and Clyve, without any evidence whatsoever. You know that Heaton-Harris in this speech meant to endorse the MLM industry, which he here refers to as Direct Selling following its primary lobbying instrument. This could be included in a neutral manner in the article if it were not for all this pettiness. It is probably not something he is ashamed of himself, nor is anyone claiming that he should be. StanTwoCents (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"...trying to malign the MP based on the MP's support of a business model that the editor does not like." That's merely WikiDan61's opinion. At no point in my contribution did I offer any opinion of Heaton-Harris' motivation. If I had suggested in my contribution that he is a useful idiot, and/or a crook, then Dan would have a point, but I merely reported the plain facts and left it to Misplaced Pages readers to form their own judgement. I have also supplied verification that on the Amway company website, Heaton-Harris has been touted as a guarantee of legitimacy. If a person reading the Amway Website were then to turn to Misplaced Pages in search of the truth, surely they should be able to find it? Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Clive Wynne Candy: In your edits, you have repeatedly pointed out not only what Heaton-Harris said, but what he did not say, with the intention of pointing out that he omitted "facts" (for which you have provided no citations) that you feel are important. The fact that you feel these facts are important, but that Heaton-Harris did not feel they were important, is where your neutrality becomes problematic. If we want to report that Heaton-Harris rose to speak in favor of the DSA, cited to the Hansard, that is fine (although so monumentally trivial as to question its inclusion). If you want to question Heaton-Harris' motives about why he omitted certain facts that you feel are important, you'll have to provide reliable sources that specifically pointed out this omission. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This needs to close.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of bring the matter here was not to litigate it, but to get an admin's opinion on the matter. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought you said you brought it here, so that “others could weigh in”? StanTwoCents (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiDan61 No one seriously disputes that the overall net-loss/churn rates for participation in MLM direct selling schemes have been effectively 100%. For verification, I suggest you read this scholarly document published by the FTC. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/trade-regulation-rule-disclosure-requirements-and-prohibitions-concerning-business-opportunities-ftc.r511993-00017%C2%A0/00017-57317.pdf I have already pointed out that the UK Fraud Act 2006 (section 3) defines and prohibits fraud by the withholding of information. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/pdfs/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf For obvious reasons, MLM companies and their de facto agents, have been engaged in a global campaign to hide the truth about the catastrophic results of their activities in respect of their constantly-churning adherents. They have had billions of dollars, and armies of attorneys and PR types, at their disposal to pursue this ongoing campaign of information monopoly. The fact that Heaton-Harris recited the MLM fairy story, and omitted to mention reality, in Parliament, is not in dispute. His motivations for doing this remain open to debate. That said, right now, I am prepared to accept that he was just a fool unless other compelling evidence comes to light. I detect from your spelling that you are not from the UK. So might I ask why you are so interested in a speech made in the UK Parliament? Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Note there are also wp:undue issues relating to this. No third party RS even seem to have deemed this speech worth mentioning, let alone important.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Well Amway UK certainly mentioned it, and the company still features Heaton-Harris, and a link to his scripted Amway/MLM promotional speech, on its website. The fact that the UK media has largely-ignored the MLM phenomenon and UK politicians and celebrities being fooled by it, illustrates the widespread lack of understanding of it. Heaton-Harris' speech is worth reporting, because in it, he promoted demonstrably fake-income opportunities (with effectively 100% overall net-loss churn rates) which, contrary to the UK Fraud Act 2006 (section 3), rely on the maintainence of a monopoly of information regarding their quantifiable results. Current estimates are that between 200 000 and 300 000 UK citizens are being quietly churned through MLM schemes annually, whilst the UK DSA continues to trumpet that there are 400 000+ MLM direct sellers in the UK. This, and other gross distortions, were read into the Parliamentry record by Heaton-Harris, and they remain there. WikiDan61, who appears not to be British (judging by his spelling of the English language) has gone to an enormous effort to make sure that this accurate information does not appear in Heaton Harris' biography. WikiDan61 has also tried to character-assassinate me and anyone supporting my rational position. I find it astonishing that a UK MP (who is currently Transport Secretary) can deliver a scripted-speech in which he effusively praised 'Amway' - a contraversial American-based labyrinth of corporate structures which has been compared to the Mafia by one of America's leading experts on organised crime - and yet this truthful and accurate information can be arbitrarily dismissed as being 'not worth mentioning' by editors who freely-confess to having no real knowledge of the MLM phenomenon. It is interesting to note that it has been reported that Heaton-Harris has been involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council - a contraversial right wing organisation that the Amway Corporation has also been a member of. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Corporations#A The function of ALEC, is explained in this Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/04/alec-rightwing-group-lawsuit In simple terms, ALEC acts like a dating agency where right-leaning legislators can cuddle up to wealthy American companies and individuals. Presumeably this truthful and accurate information will also be arbitarily dismissed as being 'not worth mentioning.' Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Clive Wynn Candy: If, as you say, the UK media has largely-ignored the MLM phenomenon, then so should we at Misplaced Pages. (See WP:OR and WP:AXE). WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiDan61 You don't seem to understand the useful concept of the past-tense. Take a breath and please try to follow? I didn't say the media is largely ignoring the MLM phenomenon, I said that it has largely-ignored it. A quick Google news search reveals that the MLM phenomenon is becoming increasingly covered by the media, particulary since the arrival of the Covid-19 crisis. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/300074555/the-dark-side-of-a-side-hustle-my-brush-with-multilevel-marketing https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/06/government-tech-fund-ceo-multilevel-marketing-392406 https://time.com/5864712/multilevel-marketing-schemes-coronavirus/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8565031/Woman-BLASTS-friends-giving-impersonal-gift-one-pal-MLM-brand-ambassador.html

BTW. The quantity of information on Misplaced Pages that hasn't featured in the media, is vast, perhaps you could delete all that as well?Clive Wynne Candy (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Clive Wynne Candy has been blocked based on a report at WP:ANI. I believe this thread can be closed and archived now. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Absurdity

See .

This edit has several problems:

1. It reintroduces multiple unreliable sources (thepeerage.com, angelfire.com "online Gotha");
2. It reintroduces {{infobox royalty}} although the Hohenzollerns are not royalty - the area they supposedly rule has been a republic for over a century (a reversal, if you will, of the famous scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail);
3. It reintroduces styles and titles such as His Serene Highness Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Hohenzollern, which are royal titles that do not apply to private individuals and for which no reliable source is cited;
4. It translates the family name "Prinz von Hohenzollern" to "Prince of Hohenzollern" - this is a lazy error.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect reliable independent sources. We have multiple reliable independent sources for the dissolution of German monarchies after the First World War - the former titles were converted to family names. Royalty fansites and society pages cannot then roll back history by declaring people to be princes. There's a walled garden of royalty fandom sites that are being used to assert a parallel reality in which Germany still has princes, and a few Wikipedians are taking that ball and running with it. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I know I had seen some discussion that I squirreled away in my head about these "fake nobility" concerns that passed on my watchlist that generally we were getting rid of them as the "official" stance (simply acknowledging the past in the body), but I can't remember where that was for the life of me. --Masem (t) 18:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you spamming up this noticeboard, there is already a thread about issues like this here, that you started?

1. Happy to replace the sources
2. So your happy to have him described as head of the former Princely House of Hohenzollern but using a infobox royalty is a step too far? How are you head of a former house, seems illogical? Are you saying it exists then? When he was born his family ruled the Kingdom of Romania and his branch were placed high in the line of succession.
3. Happy to cite reliable sources. His family ruled Romania during part of his lifetime.
4. What’s your reliable source his name is Prinz von Hohenzollern? In German he was known as Fürst von Hohenzollern after his father died, Erbprinz von Hohenzollern after his grandfather died and Prinz before that, ie from birth. You seen his passport or ID card, great Orginal Research if you have. The Telegraph obituary in the article calls him His Highness Prince Friedrich Wilhelm. Presumably that’s not a reliable source because it disagrees with your POV. - dwc lr (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Romania was ruled by legitimate descendants (who do not include Friedrich Wilhelm) of Carol I, who was a member of the same princely branch of Hohenzollern as Friedrich Wilhelm--however, other members of this family weren't even considered for succession unless Carol's direct male line died out (which is now irrelevant, since Romania is a republic). His "family" ruled Romania the same way the "family" of practically any European royalty "ruled Great Britain" and "is in the line of succession to the British throne". For the Hohenzollerns to gain the Romanian crown, Romania would have to have restored its monarchy AND Michael's decree declaring absolute primogeniture would have to have been overruled (assuming Carol II's 1923 constitution permitting succession along the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen line (which directly contradicted Prince Wilhelm's renunciation of succession rights) would even still be in effect at this point). Anyway, how can having a connection to a different, still-monarchic country entitle a person to all the royalty paraphernalia they would have had in their own country if that country hadn't abolished its monarchy? And why should being head of a house automatically confer royalty infobox status? The citations to news/non-academic royalty books/magazines represent a point of view that is not necessarily comparable in weight to the governmental/academic point of view stating unequivocally those citations cannot be correct.

And we know his name isn't "Prince Friedrich Wilhelm" or "Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern" because those titles did not legally exist when he was born and still do not exist, with primogeniture-based names being clarified as illegal (Furthermore, this law stipulated that the name of the previous noble families and their relatives should be the name that was previously passed on to the not particularly privileged family members as a family name (e.g. prinz instead of fürst, herzog instead of könig)) in 1966 (source includes this snappy (translated) quote: Many of them have long since refrained from giving the registry offices their false names for entry in the civil register, and only figure as prince of the telephone book, letterhead or champagne). Precisely because this is a contentious, perennially-litigated issue with entire legal bodies dedicated to sorting out who even gets a nobiliary particle in their surname, Misplaced Pages cannot default to the minority royalist POV. From the official German authority on aristocracy: The nobility in Germany has been officially abolished for almost 90 years. Since then, traditionalist aristocratic associations have been working to ensure that no one notices this. The same body, quoting and affirming this text in Der Spiegel May 10 1999 describing the current naming laws and attempts to contravene them:

By right, the former nobility predicates are now just any syllables in the name. Mind you: in the surname. Therefore, for example, it must also be called "Hans Graf von Meier" - because a count Hans von Meier, like princesses, princes and barons in Germany, has only existed in the fairy tale world since 1919.

But the bearers of former noble names do not want to stay there. The 1998 overview of the "Personnel occupation of the organizations of the nobility" published in the "Deutsche Adelsblatt" in 1998 lists a large number of barons, counts, barons and baronesses - the supposed nobility titles illegitimately before the first name--- p.119 moved. In the case of the "Princes" and "Princes" there is even an SD (His Highness) in front of the name, the "Margrave Max von Baden" wants to be addressed with SKH (His Royal Highness).

This is very practical for gossip pages - they like to pick up the templates, make Frederic Prince of Anhalt Prince Frederic of Anhalt without further ado, and the readership is happy about a little noble glory in Germany. Also the abbreviation of parts of names like "v.", "Frhr.", "Rr." Spoenla-Metternich criticizes: "Names like, 'Obermüller' 'or, Hoffmann' 'may not be abbreviated, O.müller' 'or, Hoffm.' ' And since the name is a unit, all "vons" in bibliographies and catalogs be classified under "V".

JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is utterly absurd. This person Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern wasn't a prince and he wasn't royal. Germany abolished such things more than a hundred years ago yet for some reason EN:WP has lots of editors who want us all to dwell in "fairy tales" and pretend we are living in a pre WWI world. German ex royals and ex nobles were allowed to legally change their last names to their titles so his last name was "Fürst von Hohenzollern" , "Hohenzollern Prince", but that is not a title but his last name. So why in the world do we translate his last name and put a comma in it?Ludicrous. This is a HUGE problem on this site, Franz, Duke of Bavaria (he's not Duke of Bavaria, there is no such thing, it's his last name "Herzog von Bayern") or Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, for instance (he's not a prince and there's not even such a country as Prussia any more.) There are innumerable articles like those. All this stuff is utterly ridiculous and needs to be removed, people who want to divert themselves with such delusions can do it elsewhere. Smeat75 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has editors who want to reflect Reliable Sources and Editors who want to make stuff up. As your so concerned about this issue please tell us what Friedrich Wilhelm’s surname was? Because in Germany he was called Fürst von Hohenzollern after his father died. Did he change his surname with the authorities? What about Franz of a Bavaria did he change his surname too from Prinz to Herzog von Bayern when his father died? - dwc lr (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, there are reliable geopolitical sources that say Germany abolished the monarchy. There are sources on nobility that ignore that. The geopolitical sources are more reliable, so override the fantasy royalty bullshit. This isn't hard.

I can find reliable sources that consider homeopathy to be medicine, but the sources that show it to be bollocks are much more reliable. Same thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That's wonderful and everything, but are you familiar with No Original Research? Where's your reliable source that says his surname is Prinz von Hohenzollern? Why was he called Fürst von Hohenzollern in Germany if (as you say without having presented a single reliable source) that his surname was Prinz von Hohenzollern? Which of these superior sources you refer to say his last name was Prinz von Hohenzollern then? In English sources as is a common and well established practice he is called Prince of Hohenzollern, in French sources he was called prince de Hohenzollern and so on. - dwc lr (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, you are misisng the point. We have extremely reliable geopolitical sources that describe the end of the monarchy in Germany. We have extremely reliable geopolitical sources that describe Germany as a Federal republic with no hereditary component. We have extremely reliable geopolitical sources that describe the Habsburg Laws and their effect in Austria. Compared with these, the walled garden of sources that like to pretend 1918 didn't happen, do not cut it. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

OK so what your saying is you don't have "extremely reliable geopolitical sources that..." say his surname was 'Prinz von Hohenzollern'? Do you know if Romania recognised his title at birth, do you know if he had citizenship of another country that recognised his title. In summary what you saying is you can put an "extremely reliable" reference into an article saying Germany is a republic but you've got nothing you can put into this article saying what this mans legal name was. Glad we've cleared that up now. - dwc lr (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, His family name is Prinz von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, as the lesser title (see above). And whatever his legal name is, it is not "Prince of Hohenzollern". If you can't even source the name without claiming a title that doesn't exist then you have a serious WP:V problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG I don’t see any sources above that mention him, are you talking about JoelleJay’s post? I see how using OR/Synth above you would say that, but I see nothing that says what his surname was? Misplaced Pages’s standards are very high. - dwc lr (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Carol I died without surviving descendants. The succession went back to the Hohenzollern line and Prince Ferdinand. On the extinction of his male line the succession again was to go back to the Hohenzollern line. The Romanians consulted their Fürst as head of the family on different matters. - dwc lr (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, succession of what? There is no such thing as a Hohenzollern prince. It's part of the Federal Republic of Germany. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Romania up to 1947. - dwc lr (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So Reliable Sources say Karl von Habsburg is head of the House of Habsburg, Franz, Duke of Bavaria is head of the House of Wittelsbach and so on, so naturally Misplaced Pages reflects that. JzG, JoelleJay, Smeat75 etc are you happy with that or is that an absurdity too that needs correction. I assume you are opposed to that practice too, or is it fine saying someone is head of a royal house, or a former royal house, but using a royal title per Reliable Sources or even worse using infobox royalty is completely unacceptable as it “gives the wrong impression” (but your fine with giving the wrong impression by inventing or supporting made up last names for BLPs, ?) Because how can the House of Habsburg exist, where does it exist, we can’t even presumably call them head of the family because how can a family have a formal head? Presumably one could say they “claim to be” but how do we source that, no doubt you are likely all against using the term “pretender” for those very reasons. - dwc lr (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, I have no problem with describing them as heads of the former royal houses of Habsburg or whatever. That's fine. I do have a problem with using {{infobox royalty}} and describing them as princes and archdukes, because they are not.

In most cases there are virtually no reality-based sources about these people. They appear in almanacs that behave as if 1918 never happened. Those almanacs are reliable for lines of succession, but clearly unreliable for the continued existence of royalty within Republics.

I think there should be no disagreement that using {{infobox royalty}} is completely inappropriate for people born after the monarchy was abolished. If you can't tolerate {{infobox person}} then fork an infobox for former royalty, heads and scions of former royal houses, but this fantasy has to stop. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So how can you be head of a former Royal House, but you can't be a Prince. What's the difference then. Is a former royal house a legally recognised post then? - dwc lr (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, you can be the head of a household, the acknowledged senior member of an ancient family, without claiming to rule an area that you no longer rule. The UK has a monarchy. So does the Netherlands. Germany does not. We have articles on this. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So who acknowledges these people as head of such and such house? Who says so and so is head of a household? Are these legally recognised positions then? Or is it like the titles not legally recognised. Using a title does not imply any claim to rule, otherwise we would be saying Prince Charles is claiming to rule Wales. - dwc lr (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, see above. We have reliable geopolitical sources that say Germany has no monarchies. We have reliable-for-context nobility sources that say X is head of the house of Y. These are not in tension. The tension arrives when you assert tat being head of the house of Y makes you royalty and a prince of some part of Germany that no longer has a monarchy. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So what your saying is Germany has no monarchies, but it does have noble/royal houses, only the people who belong to said houses are neither royal/noble, but that doesn't matter and we can still say they belong/head up said noble/royal house but we can't use a royal/noble title or use an infobox that has a field for membership of a 'House' because that gives the wrong impression, but in the text its fine to say someone is a member of such and such House even though we are definitely not trying to imply they are royal/noble just because they belong to a House, because while Germany is a republic with no princes/dukes, it also has royal/noble houses, only with no royal/noble members only commoner members. I have understood that right? - dwc lr (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, is there some part of "former royal house" that is hard to understand? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So, you can be head or a member of a “former royal house” which is something without any legal status, but you can’t be called a Prince which is also without any legal status? So Michael of Romania had the power make his daughter “head of the former royal house” but did not have the power to make her husband a Prince of Romania? - dwc lr (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, have you ever heard of the terms patriarch and matriarch? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Are they legally recognised positions? Is “head of the former reigning House of Romania” a legally recognised post, Will the courts rule on who is head of a formerly reigning house? - dwc lr (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Germany has no noble/royal houses. They ABOLISHED them. It would be OK to describe these people as heads or members of FORMER ruling or noble houses but they are not royal, they are not Princes or Princesses or Dukes or Duchesses. Smeat75 (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So the (former ruling) House of Habsburg still exists, it has a Head, it has lots of members, it has a line of succession and rules determining the succession (otherwise how is the head determined), it has rules setting out who is a member of the House, the head can confer the Order of the Golden Fleece and other orders. So we are happy to accept and recognise all that per Reliable Sources, the only thing we are saying the Reliable Sources are wrong about is the members of the House having titles like Archduke? - dwc lr (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

They can make up their own rules and give out decorations if they want to, it doesn't mean they are royal or have titles because such things were abolished in their countries more than 100 years ago. Yes, they should not be called "Prince " or "Duchess ", etc., they're not, and it shouldn't be pretended that they are noble or royal. Smeat75 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So they can “make up” anything, which we can cover, other than a title (irrespective of the countless reliable sources attributing such titles)? At least I know if I go and look at re-creating Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne, as Line of succession to the headship of the House of Habsburg it shouldn’t get deleted. - dwc lr (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is that historically having a substantive title, which usually coincided with membership/headship in a house, conferred specific privileges legally recognized, bestowed, and protected by the state--e.g. automatic positions in government/military, the seigneurial system for landed titles, exemption from peasant taxes, etc. But dynastic notoriety is decoupled from these perquisites--well-known, wealthy families can have "heads" without (ever) being ennobled.

I think it was Aquillion who brought up an important facet of this debate in the last thread: the inherent bias in the type of sources that cover former nobility. That is, the media that tend to report on these people the most are also generally more likely to exaggerate titulature and the importance of aristocracy, and to ignore any legal constraints imposed by the state. These media may therefore not represent the actual widespread usage COMMONNAME assumes. This is a weakness of COMMONNAME that perhaps needs to be clarified: if the preponderance of sources attribute a title to someone, is that title automatically part of their name even if all those sources are low-quality tabloids, and even if that attribution contradicts the laws of the relevant country? But as I've said several times, while this impacts how we title the article, what is (apparently) even more unclear is how this should affect how we treat the noble title itself, both in relation to and independent of the person in question. An example would be a hypothetical article on an American naturopath whose notability is derived from writing popular alt med books: despite perhaps a majority of sources referring to her as "doctor", should we require sources stating that she specifically is not a physician in order to exclude her from our physician and doctor categories? I would argue in this case if the relevant U.S. state explicitly rejects NDs from their definition of doctor/physician, we would not need a source disputing her use of the title. The corollary for noble/royal titles would therefore be: when a government explicitly defines what a title is and its legal status, Misplaced Pages should default to this definition in the article body and templates irrespective of the COMMONNAME article title (e.g. not referring to someone whose COMMONNAME is "Princess Marie of Bavaria" as "the princess" or "HRH", or including her in royalty navboxes). JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know: the King of the Netherlands is a Prince of Orange. Orange was a principality in France, which is now a republic. So, which government should be followed: the government of the Netherlands or that of France? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

See this diff. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not that IP and I don't have knowledge of the subjects he/she was blocked for. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess the oldid doesn't change when you click "next edit"?. This should be correct. JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know of any wealthy family with a “head”, a clearly defined membership, a line of succession to the “headship”, the ability to rule a marriage morganatic thereby depriving any children of membership of the family and succession, the ability to regulate titles. The only people who object to calling someone from a “former royal house” by a title is some Misplaced Pages editors. Hanover is part of Germany, yet Monaco says the sister of the Prince is HRH The Princess of Hanover. Presumably to various Misplaced Pages editors she Caroline Prinzessin von Hannover Herzogin zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinzessin von Großbritannien und Irland, born HSH Princess Caroline of Monaco. The uncles of Carl XVI Gustaf lost their titles for marrying commoners yet, no doubt to the mind of Misplaced Pages Editors his mother Miss Sibylla Prinzessin von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha Herzogin zu Sachsen, born HH Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but a commoner when she married, was no different to a Miss Patzek. This business of saying we can’t call them by a title is frankly a fringe view not reflected in the real world. The King of Sweden decided a load of his grandkids were no longer to be HRH, yet if he we were to deposed tomorrow the only thing we seem to be suggesting he would lose the ability to do is regulate titles and styles in his “former royal family”. Anything else, no problem he is free to do whatever he wants in his “former ruling House”,award decorations, change the succession rules etc - dwc lr (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The only people who object to calling someone from a “former royal house” by a title is some Misplaced Pages editors. Did you not read the {{tqb}} Der Spiegel passages quoted on the official German Institute for the Recognition of Aristocracy website? In the section "Explanations on the concept of nobility in the opinion of the Association of German Adelsverband e. V. (VdDA) and representatives of the historic German nobility"--apparently drawing background from the German wiki on Adel, but nevertheless useful as a proxy for their own stated opinion--they stress that the modern titling by aristocratic associations "applies exclusively within the association and has no legal effect outside of these associations" and furthermore advance this rather scathing indictment of those who support titling: "The self-image of the aristocratic associations and their relatives, based on the historical concept of nobility, as well as corresponding reporting, above all in the rainbow press, but also in reputable media, has meant that in some sections of the population the fact that the German nobility has been extinct since 1919 is not noticed." So no, it is not just "some Misplaced Pages editors" who are bothered by improper ennoblement. JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel article is over 20 years old. What have successive governments down about it? Nothing, because it’s only a small fringe that get animated about this issue. The “Association” cites Misplaced Pages, everyone knows Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. It’s like drawing on the opinions of the few EN Wiki editors who get animated about this, and ignoring all the reliable sources that attribute titles still, so I should probably say just EN and DE Wiki and people who cite those people. Frankly it’s downright lazy from them, they are clearly not expert in anything and not even Misplaced Pages would touch anything there as being a Reliable Source. - dwc lr (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's only a small fringe that pretends that there is still an active German nobility. Well done. Who is the ruling Duke of Bavaria? If your answer is not "nobody, Bavaria does not have a ruling duke any more", go back to square one and try again. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There hasn’t been a ruling Duke of Bavaria in about 400 years as far as I can tell? There are plenty of reliable sources who say who the non reigning Duke of Bavaria is (sorry you only like the term “head of the former ruling House”, I’m not even sure there is sources that use that precise term so are we allowed to say it? (Not that you seem overly concerned by nuisances like Verifiability, you certainly have not not cited a single source which states the surname of the subject of this thread, yet you boldly profess to know it)), and even the previous President of Germany even called this individual His Royal Highness and Duke Franz. And yet no one cared, no scandal nothing? The President of Germany apparently ignored the law and no one cared? Well I assume an insignificant fringe who live an echo chamber, probably class warriors consumed with bigotry and an overinflated sense of self importance, cared out there in the real world. The rest of the world doesn’t bat an eyelid. - dwc lr (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I assume an insignificant fringe who live an echo chamber, probably class warriors consumed with bigotry and an overinflated sense of self importance, cared out there in the real world. • (Not that you seem overly concerned by nuisances like Verifiability, you certainly have not not cited a single source which states the surname of the subject of this thread, yet you boldly profess to know it) Seriously? Those are some pretty bold personal attacks. And the German wiki cites this obituary for the name (Friedrich Wilhelm Fürst von Hohenzollern) registered at his death. I don't see why we shouldn't as well. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok so now you think he changed his surname at some point, when previously you were saying people couldn’t? I can’t verify from that article snippet that his “legal surname” was changed to Fürst von Hohenzollern can you? We have already established that most people don’t care and attribute titles and styles still, including Presidents of Germany. - dwc lr (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Smeat75, it's like they are cosplaying Tannhäuser or something. wo lange noch der frohe Ruf erschalle: Thüringens Fürsten, Landgraf Hermann, Heil! Guy (help! - typo?) 00:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

We should desribe the subject however he is normally described in reliable sources. In reply to JoelleJay: there is a distinction between a title that implies an office, such as head of state, and titles that do not. We should not refer to anyone as Emperor of Austria-Hungary, King of the United Kingdom, Duke of Bavaria, etc., unless such an office exists and the person actually holds it. If someone claims these offices, then we refer to them as pretenders.The fact that lesser titles often included privileges is irrelevant. Titles and privileges are severable. Lords of the United Kingdom for example lost the right to sit in the House of Lords, but they are still lords.

The laws on using titles is murky and would take a great deal of original research by editors to resolve. For example, a peer in Scotland is not a peer in England, they are an esquire. Ireland is a republic, but Irish titles are stilled used in Great Britain. France is a republic, but the courts protect the use of titles. Germany abolished the privileges of nobility, including use of titles, but not nobility itself. The Pope awarded titles of nobility to people in countries that no longer have nobility. The heir apparent to the British throne is the Prince of Wales, but Wales is no longer a principality in law, having been incorporated into England. The heir apparent to the Dutch throne is the Prince of Orange, but Orange is in the French republic.

Alternatively, some nobles do not use their titles and in those cases they should not be used. For example, David Thomson does not use his title and it is not used in UK articles about him, but for some reason, it is in his Misplaced Pages article.

TFD (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do re: inclusion in a royalty navbox or category (e.g. "Archduchesses of Austria" or "Tuscan Princes") for people with royal ancestry whose titles have been abolished and are not explicitly recognized by any state? Should Georg Friedrich (according to us, "the great-great-grandson and historic heir of Wilhelm II, the last German Emperor and King of Prussia, who abdicated and went into exile upon Germany's defeat in World War I in 1918") be listed as a "Prince of Prussia" alongside Fredrick William IV of Prussia? It wasn't an "office", but the title did confer particular rights and social functions and was regulated by the state, which is fundamentally different from how the title is treated by the (successor) state now. To me, it is misleading to mix people whose titles today, at best, only indicate membership in a particular family, with those whose titles were tied to government-administered privileges. It also introduces a major discrepancy when it comes to people who are not (most) notable for having noble heritage--if our policy is to go by what a person is called by reliable sources, why do we automatically list various non-notable children as being titled in their parents' articles irrespective of what RS call them? What about people who are far more notable for other activities, whose ancestry may be occasionally mentioned but always with the caveat of "he could have been Prince of XXX if not for..."? Surely such sources couldn't be used to support his inclusion in a royalty navbox? JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, although some titled people had privileges, their privileges were severable from their titles. The Duke of Westminster like all peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords. Now he doesn't. It doesn't mean he has ceased to be a duke. In fact calling him a duke is misleading because Westminster is not a duchy, it's a borough. And the duke has no authority beyond his private landholdings there. There's an Earl of Wessex although Wessex ceased to exist over 1,000 years age. It is basic policy in Misplaced Pages that articles reflect sources and editors do not use their expertise to correct the errors in reliable sources.

Regarding your comment about people who are not most notable for having royal heritage, COMMONNAME comes to the rescue. If they are not known by their titles, don't use them. Look at my example, David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet. There is no need to include his title in his name. I persuaded other editors to remove the title of John Buchan, because he is not usually known by it.

TFD (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD, you'd think that would be enough, but these individuals are always edited back in based on their family members' (supposed) titles. There are multiple issues even with using COMMONNAME as guidance:

• Inconsistency: do we list all the non-notable "issue" of a titled person as also being titled, or only the ones with reliable sources giving them a title? When a monarchy is extant, presumably we don't require sources explicitly calling someone "princess" for them to be titled as such in an article (for example, if a Saudi prince had a baby but RS didn't specifically call the infant "Princess X" or "the new princess", would we have to wait until such a source appeared before we could list her as a princess alongside her titled siblings on her parents' pages?). However, when royal titles are abolished and illegal, as is the case in Austria, to some extent in Germany, and in several other European countries, even with RS it would be POV to automatically title people and even more POV to place them in categories with legally-recognized holders of that title. Not to mention OR to do so without any sourcing.
• How many RS does it take for a person to "receive" a title in wikivoice? Does legal recognition not matter at all, with just a one-sentence mention from a royalty-enthusiast magazine or "laughably sloppy" unquestionably biased royal genealogy book announcing his birth being enough to call someone "archduke" and place him in all archduke categories? See for example the constant conflict over how to refer to Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg and his family (most recently was this reversion between Anthony Ayman and Ad Orientem, but the conflict has been ongoing for a decade). Mind you, this is a dude with his own notable career unrelated to his ancestry; whose coverage pretty unambiguously indicates a non-noble COMMONNAME; whose claim to a title is disrupted not only by it having been constitutionally abolished and made illegal three generations earlier, but also by his grandfather formally renouncing all royal pretensions for himself and his descendants. He is still titled "Archduke Ferdinand" in the Austrian Royalty: House of Habsburg-Lorraine navbar, the Austrian archdukes navbox, and the Austrian princes category. Is it just not possible to lose a title, even if you wouldn't be allowed in your home country if you didn't disclaim it?

Re: British peerage: Britain still recognizes, grants, and regulates nobility; titles are legally granted via prerogative powers confided to the sovereign. There is no sovereign authority recognizing or granting nobility in the countries in question, and their regulation takes the form of abolishing and outlawing nobility. In Austria, public titles, like those held by all the men in our Archdukes of Austria navbox up to and including Otto, ceased to exist in 1918. Use of the titles in Austria is illegal, but if it weren't they would still be considered private rather than public and only accorded internationally as a courtesy, which is a pretty fundamental difference separating family members born pre- and post-1918. And it's not a modern or Misplaced Pages-only or even particularly controversial interpretation that noble titles are lost upon the dissolution of the granting kingdom or constitutional abolition--much of international law and relations is founded on the philosophy of Kant, who in the 18th century said in The Metaphysics of Morals Hence, if the State alters its constitution, no one who thereby loses his title and rank would be justified in saying that what was his own had been taken from him; because he could only call it his own under the condition of the continued duration of the previous form of the State. Obviously I'm not advocating using OR here, just countering DWC LR's claim that only a couple Misplaced Pages editors care at all about who is titled. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You keep comparing British nobility/ royal titles with these defunct ones. They are not comparable. British royal and noble positions still exist. Austria,Germany. other countries specifically ABOLISHED them, they do not exist any more, there's no such thing, there is an infinity of reliable sources to that effect. Pretending otherwise is delusional or misinformed. Smeat75 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not bound to reflect the laws of certain countries in how it refers to people. Even the previous President of Germany was perfectly happy to address Franz, Duke of Bavaria as “Herzog Franz” and “Königliche Hoheit”. It’s only a small fringe that either care or get animated about this issue. To the majority it’s a harmless tradition and long established custom. Which in terms of Misplaced Pages is backed up by Reliable Sources. - dwc lr (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't (only) about how Misplaced Pages refers to people, but how it treats an item defined externally from the person. The items in a category should meet definitional criteria according to the parent article; currently our articles on these titles state they were abolished, that their last holder was so-and-so, that there is no legal recognition of them. These statements are supported by government and academic sources explicitly detailing the status of the title; therefore we would need sources of equivalent weight specifically documenting any new title status if we wanted to expand the definition. Even then it would require consensus to state that this new definition overrides the prior definition. This is in accordance with our categorization guidelines, which state an article's inclusion must be verifiable and have a neutral point of view, and the category must be a defining characteristic. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No legal recognition in the host country. You’ve got the law of Germany saying titles don’t exist. Yet you’ve got a Sovereign State saying a member of its family is HRH The Princess of Hanover. We are guided by Reliable Sources say, not what a law says. As far as I’m aware the Constitution of Argentina says it has sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, does that make it so? Lots of reliable sources recognise titles even if the laws of a certain country don’t. We are not bound by the laws of anyone country, just because X country says Y the rest of the world does not have to recognise Y. There are also countless laws that are ignored and not enforced, even the President of Germany didn’t care. - dwc lr (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the laws of Austria say, it's what reliable sources say. Note that British titles have no legal status except where recognized by law. Irish and Scottish titles don't even have legal status in England. The concern seems to be that editors are creating articles about non-notable people who claim to hold noble titles. Well delete them. Titles don't confer notability. Incidentally, the name North Korea is not the legal name of the country, yet we use it in Misplaced Pages. TFD (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The concern seems to be that editors are creating articles about non-notable people who claim to hold noble titles. Where do you get the idea that this is the concern? How would this apply to Ferdinand von Habsburg, who is notable as a race car driver? And would you agree that the Austrian government and academic articles on the nobility in Austria are reliable sources on the title "Archduke of Austria"? Not on a particular person, but the status of the title itself. Also, what does it matter whether an Irish title has legal status in the UK (Scottish peers have been recognized since 1963), or that North Korea is officially the DPRK (we cite academic and governmental sources on the name to support our name usage, which is what should be used for titles too if you are really trying to make this comparison)? JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, reliable sources say that Austria does not have an archduke. Sources reliable for genealogy claim that there is one, or at least imply it from lineage, but they are a lower tier of source than the sources that describe the end of the Austrian monarchy. Seriously, it's like Arthur King of the Britons, but in reverse. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Austria has not had an archduke since 1804, when the archduchy was absorbed into the Austrian Empire and the title was assigned to the emperor's heir apparent. In the German duchies, when the dukes abdicated, they no longer used the title of duke, instead using the title of prince, which was the title assigned to the sons of reigning dukes in the German Empire. Similarly Wales was incorporated into England and ceased to have a prince, but the title Prince of Wales was assigned to the heir apparent to the English throne. The Queen not her son is the sovereign of Wales. I totally agree that we should not refer to people using offices they do not hold, such as Emperor of Germany, Austria or Russia, or King of Italy or Greece or Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. TFD (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, all those titles were officially and legally changed/assigned by sovereign authorities, permitting use of titles no longer landed to extant regions. The exact same thing happened here: the sovereign authority constitutionally changed the titles--they were abolished. If we acknowledge the governmental decrees that shift a ducal title to a princely one, or the monarchic prerogative to redefine an incorporated state's princely title, or the various effects of switching from absolute to constitutional monarchy, why don't we do the same when the sovereign authority eliminates a title fully? After all, nobiliary law is/was generally codified or at least empowered by language in state constitutions (e.g. Article 14 of the 1815 Constitution of the German Confederation, which explicitly preserved the titles and privileges of the princely houses the Confederation united). It was the state, not the heads of houses, that enforced the family contracts governing succession rights. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this the winner?

Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia is " member of the Royal House of Yugoslavia". That's a remarklable feat given that Yuygoslavia hasn't existed since 1992, and the Yugoslavia that had a monarchy (unlike the 1945 foundation, which was a Communist republic) only existed for 25 years, ending 15 years before his birth. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is he known as? Prince Dimitri, but sure let’s just make up a name for him. Do we think it’s the English Karageorgevitch, the Serb version, maybe it’s the French de Yougoslavie like his brother could be. Shall we just pick one out of a hat? - dwc lr (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, he brands himself as Prince Dimitri. It's a marketing name. His name is Dimitri Karageorgevich. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG ignoring the fact you have not given any reliable source saying what his surname is, you’re now saying some surnames are translated then? Thereby contradicting what you have said initially in your first post in this thread, where you say there not. As Karageorgevich is not the Serbian version. - dwc lr (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, they exist, but let's be clear here: Yugoslavia does not have a monarchy. And pretending it does? That's a really bad idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I would add that as well as a monarchist bias in using these titles, there could also be an anti-Italian and anti-German bias in some cases, acting as if the unification of these countries in the mid-19th century, which swept aside various mini-states like Tuscany and Hanover, never happened. PatGallacher (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ireland is a republic but there is nonetheless an Earl of Limerick and a Duke of Leinster. Noble titles are near-forbidden in Ireland. GPinkerton (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Douma chemical attack

Over at Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#Article_in_The_Nation_(July_2020) There is an ongoing RfC about whether a piece in The Nation by Aaron Maté entitled Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds? should be included in the article. Maté is strongly associated with and writes for the deprecated website The Grayzone. The article repeats claims published in The Grayzone and other Pro-Assad sources (including RT) about OPCW leaks, claiming that these are evidence of flaws in the OPCW investigation which found Assad to be culpable for the attack. These claims have been mostly ignored by reliable sources and dismissed by those who acknowledge them, including a 4 part rebuttal by Bellingcat. Your participation would be welcomed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Project Veritas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead section at Project Veritas does not follow NPOV. My attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page was greeted with little interest, and my hope is that the readership of this noticeboard is more sensitive to NPOV issues and can more effectively avoid the kind of partisanship that characterizes some of the discussions at Talk:Project Veritas. (Pinging Slatersteven and Horse Eye Jack, who each posted in the discussion thread.)

To summarize what I wrote on the Talk page: By stating, "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos," Misplaced Pages's voice suggests that all or most of Project Veritas's videos are "deceptively edited," when in fact most of the group's videos never received any such criticism from reliable sources. The wording also implies that the videos were deceptively edited as an undisputed fact, when in fact this criticism has been disputed in multiple reliable sources, such as by Clark Hoyt of the New York Times (cited in the Misplaced Pages article itself) and by Mona Charen of National Review.

My proposal is to change the sentence to: "The group is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been widely criticized for being deceptively edited." I think this version satisfies NPOV, while the current version does not. Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas, and have disclosed this on my user page and on the article's Talk page. Sal at PV (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why does their targets matter?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And we are supposed to take this WP:MANDY seriously because? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I should be taken seriously because I am being reasonable and making a good point, rooted in Misplaced Pages policy. And WP:MANDY is about creating false balance in an article by presenting the subject's denial of allegations against it, which is not at all what I am proposing here. It certainly doesn't say that you should be dismissive and patronizing whenever an article's (properly disclosed) subject wants to be involved in a discussion about the content of the article. Sal at PV (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I just read the entire Clark Hoyt article that you cited. It seems damning to me. He points out that O’Keefe did not wear the pimp outfit in the filming, as if that’s in his favor. Quite the opposite. The point was that the video was faked to look as if he did, making it seem that he was an obvious pimp to ACORN staff and greatly changing the narrative of the video. Which is to say, the video was deceptively edited. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Clark Hoyt writes that while the videos were heavily edited, "the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context." That is the opposite of "deceptively edited." Regarding O'Keefe presenting himself as a pimp, Hoyt writes (emphasis mine): "Acorn's supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O'Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O'Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman - sometimes along with under-age girls - in a house where they would work as prostitutes."

I acknowledge that most reliable sources did not agree with Hoyt and Charen's view that the ACORN and NPR videos were not deceptively edited. But to state it as axiomatic in Misplaced Pages's voice that Project Veritas's videos are all deceptively edited, without acknowledging that this is an opinion that is not shared by all reliable sources presents an imbalanced and POV picture of the organization. Sal at PV (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I gave more examples below. And as you say, most reliable sources did not agree with Hoyt in this case. You can always find someone who disagrees, even if you say the sky is blue. O3000 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV, for values of "reasonable" that include relentlessly pushing for more positive coverage of a bunch of grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

MRDA means more broadly that denials by the subject should be viewed with a grain of salt, or in Mandy Rice-Davies's own words: "Well he would say that wouldn't he?". Of course as somebody who is directly paid by Project Veritas you are going to dispute the idea that PV deceptively edits videos, which it is widely reported by reliable sources. With a lack of reliable sources to the contrary, there's not really a reason to introduce WP:WEASEL words to soften the current lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

First, if you want to write your own essay saying that an article's subject shouldn't be able to defend itself on Misplaced Pages Talk pages (after properly disclosing COI), please go ahead. But that is absolutely not what WP:MANDY says. Second, my entire point is that there are prominent reliable sources that dispute the "deceptive editing" trope (Hoyt and Charen), not to mention the fact that most of Project Veritas's videos never received that criticism in the first place, even from the organization's detractors. Sal at PV (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV, Mona Charen works for a right-wing think-tank, and that is an opinion piece. Hoyt is also an opinion piece that predates the results of the legal inquiries and settlement surrounding O'Keefe's fraudulent Acorn sting, and the June GAO report that showed no evidence of mishandling of funds. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Some examples of how PV is viewed by sources:

• “On Monday afternoon, Project Veritas, the discredited rightwing attack organization run by James O’Keefe that specializes in sting operations against liberal groups and the established media, was itself thoroughly exposed.”

• ”Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it’s deceptively edited and doesn’t add up to much, but he managed to catch one executive in a pretty poor choice of words.”

• “Although O’Keefe has defended the organization’s methods as journalistically sound, mainstream news organizations have largely abandoned the practice of infiltrating businesses or organizations to record video without a subject’s knowledge or consent. News organizations generally consider the practice deceptive, and doing so can subject them to criminal trespass penalties.”

• “James O’Keefe, the conservative filmmaker known for his outlandish, selectively edited undercover videos, is back in the spotlight for embarrassing himself as he tried to embarrass someone else.”

• “The videos are, as is typical of O’Keefe’s, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions.”

• “At the same time, journalism that seeks to destroy institutions is not journalism at all. And that's pretty much what O'Keefe practices with his mean-spirited, deceptive videos. ‘We did not reject journalistic ethics,’ he writes in his own defense. ‘We simply had to create those ethics anew.’” O3000 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Again, I never argued that there are no sources that criticize Project Veritas for deceptive editing. Obviously there are many who have made and continue to make that allegation, despite the organization's strong objections to it. I'm only saying that it is wrong to claim that the reliable sources are so unanimous regarding this allegation that it should be presented in Misplaced Pages's voice as an undisputed fact. Sal at PV (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues raised, I do not see why we need to say "left wing" it is both an assumption and tells us nothing other then they have a political bias. As to how often they deceptively edit videos, has any source given any indication of how often the deceptively edit videos? They do do it (so we can say they do), but can it be shown its not a majority of the stuff they produce?Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC) ] "Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it’s deceptively edited".Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources I provided say this is what he is known for. And, unanimity is not required for WikiVoice. Unanimity is rare. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I would be careful about the list above. Most are clearly left leaning and they are applying a contentious description/somewhat vague accusation at a source that is ideologically on the other side. Note that the WP doesn't make claims like PV is "discredited" etc. They are more careful in their wording noting the issues with hidden camera type reporting. WP doesn't say the videos are edited in a deceptive fashion. The above examples are why I think we should always be careful about using sources that are politically opposed to describe one another. Vice, Slate, HuffPo etc are often too slanted in their own writing to treat their claims as 100% objective. That doesn't mean they are inventing issues but it means they are showing clear bias by how they emphasis certain aspects while overlooking others. Note, this last bit is my general concern with those sources rather than a concern specific to this topic. This is why I feel that such claims need to be attributed. Springee (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: According to WP:DUE, significant minority views - in contrast to tiny minority views - should be given their due weight in Misplaced Pages articles, and should not be ignored entirely. The view that Project Veritas's video editing is not deceptive is certainly a significant minority view, with prominent adherents (Clark Hoyt and Mona Charen), whose views are expressed in reliable sources. To say "the group is known for producing deceptively edited videos" is to pretend that the minority view is tiny or nonexistent, when in fact it is a significant viewpoint held by prominent journalists. So by all means, give the majority viewpoint more space and emphasis in the article and in the lead specifically. But don't violate NPOV by refusing to give the significant minority viewpoint its due weight as well. Sal at PV (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if you can produce at least more RS that say it does not then say it does. A "minority view is a view held by a minority, not a view "not openly expressed by many". So produce some RS that say they do not deceptively edit most of their videos.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Without seeing the specific sources I won' claim Sal at PV is correct, however, if Hoyt and Charen claim the videos were not deceptively edited or dispute claims made by others I would say that should be included as a decenting POV. Also, based on this list above we do not have sufficient sourcing to make the claim in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Who is refusing to give the significant minority viewpoint its due weight as well? Hoyt is already in the article -- although he only commented on one video and said it was heavily edited. Mona Charen referred to PV as the: "ironically named Project Veritas". This doesn't look like a significant view endorsing PV. O3000 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: The specific sources for Hoyt and Charen are here and here. Hoyt said the videos were heavily edited, but critically, not deceptively edited. And regarding Mona Charen, the fact that she may not "endorse" PV, as O3000 says, is irrelevant - she stated outright that the NPR video was not deceptively edited, and that is the question at hand. Sal at PV (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Note Hoyt also does not say "the videos were not deceptively edited". But it may be time for fresh eyes, as we are going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

So what we have is a one paragraph op-edd talking about one video.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and each of the two sources provided gave their personal opinions on one video each. Neither contradicts the statement: "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos". O3000 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Which neutral sources, not left leaning sources, centrist (and I count WP in centrist), make the claim that the group is known for. Even if the group has been found to deceptively edit videos are they known for that? Are the sources that say they deceptively edit the videos impartial? If they aren't how can we decide their description is neutral vs partisan. Would a right leaning source use the same description? It's notable that the WP does not even if they criticize the use of hidden video footage. If this is going to be described in Wiki voice it needs to be rock solid. Based on what is presented here it isn't. Springee (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are all considered reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Business insider ]?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

BI is a yellow source per WP:RSP. I would not accept their qualitative assessment as sufficient to state something like known for deceptively editing videos in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

O3000, don't confuse Misplaced Pages RS with impartial. This is where we need to be careful with what is opinion within an article and the facts reported by the article. As an example, if I quote you but remove some words is that misleading? "Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are ... reliable sources" Is my edit of your statement misleading? That would probably depend on context. Both your original sentence and my edit convey the idea that the listed sources are reliable thus I can argue my edit isn't misleading. However, my edit makes it look like you are expressing your opinion while your actual statement (and the context of this discussion) imply that Misplaced Pages consensus has found those sources to be reliable. I mention this to show how "deceptive" in the case of my edit of your sentence can be subjective. This would be especially important if you personally didn't like those sources but you were speaking to the Misplaced Pages consensus. My point is that "deceptive" has a level of value judgement. I might claim my edit of your sentence was not deceptive. However, if your personal feelings regarding those sources was different than the consensus Misplaced Pages view then you could rightly claim my edit was deceptive since it ascribed an opinion to you rather than to the group. Vox is hardly a centrist news source and they certainly aren't right leaning. If Vox says, "the following was edited out of the video" that is a statement of objective fact. If they say this changes the meaning, that is arguably objective. Saying that this is deceptive is now subjective (ie the opinion of the Vox author). It then becomes more subjective to for Vox to say PV is known for. How did they establish that fact? Did they conduct a pole and find that x% of people who had heard of PV associated them with deceptive video edits? This is effectively a contentious label and thus the sourcing either needs to be rock solid or we should attribute the claim. It's a problem with Misplaced Pages that this sort of issue comes up so often. Springee (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What I meant by "Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are all considered reliable sources" was "Verge, Snoops, and The Guardian are all considered reliable sources." No more, no less. My opinion is not relevant. I provided sources that we consider reliable. That's what we do here. If you think there are systemic problems with WP procedures, take it to the proper forum. (And, I don't know what Vox has to do with this.) O3000 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed the example. I'm not taking issue with the statement, I'm showing how an edit to the statement could change it's meaning and thus could be considered deceptive depending on the POV of the reader as well as the person who originally made the statement. The point was to illustrate that "deceptive" is a subjective claim. That is what we are dealing with here. While I trust Vox to report facts like "PV recorded this video after hours at a bar", I wouldn't trust the left leaning Vox to neutrally on a partisan topic. Even in a "factual article" there are parts where the topic becomes subjective and in cases like that we need to be careful about treating what are in effect opinions of the writer as reliable fact. If Vox interviews a prof of ethics and journalism and then says "Prof X says this is deceptive", that is an objective statement (the prof did say...). The Prof is making a subjective claim but presumably they are qualified to make it. The reporter is objectively quoting the professor. If the author of the article says it's deceptive then that is a subjective claim. A subjective, contentious label/claim applied by a source that is politically at odds with the article subject should be attributed. Springee (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't use Vox. I used The Verge for technical reporting, as in deceptively edited. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, The Verge, not Vox. The one is part of the other and their reporting seems to show that. Either way, yes, I meant The Verge as that was your source. Do keep in mind The Verge has limits on it's status as a RS per WP:RSP, There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Political topics like PV is not within that range of reliable uses. Regardless, this is beating around the bush. Springee (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The national review is also a yellow source, and it is being used for an Op-edSlatersteven (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to reject every source by opining that they are left-leaning? And everything is owned by something else these days. These are green sources. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. I'm not rejecting sources. I'm saying that they are not of sufficient quality to accept their subjective claims without attribution. Springee (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is to say you are rejecting them. Thanks, but I think I get it. These sources are RS. ALL sources along these lines are "subjective". Indeed, adjectives in general are commonly "subjective". WP uses the preponderance of RS. OTOH, your opinion that these sources are left-leaning is subjective. Let us just use RS according to guidelines. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, rejecting them means we can't use them for a claim in any capacity. Being a "RS" is not a rubber stamp for inclusion of any claim in wiki voice. You are correct that a claim of "deceptive" is generally subjective. I'm sure someone could set up a psychology experiment to objectively measure deceptive but I doubt The Verge did that. That is why we treat that subjective claim like an opinion embedded within an otherwise (presumably) objective article. The easy way around this is attribution. That is acting according to guidelines as it balances the nature of the claim against the quality of the source. As for left leaning, well we can see what the various media bias sources say. Do you think they would call those sources right leaning? Springee (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in an WP:OR experiment as that is not our job. We use RS constantly to show the preponderance of RS. And yes, it is subjective. That's why we use RS instead of our own judgement. Basically, you are rejecting multiple RS because of your personal views about them. And would I call them right-leaning? Quite possibly if I looked at the term from a worldwide perspective. But, I have no interest in expressing my personal view here on such, or even thinking about it, as it's irrelevant. The rules here are really simple. Just follow them. WP RS cites say what the text says. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not OR to differentiate between a subjective claim vs an objective one. Objective: "33 seconds was removed from the middle of that video"

Subjective: "the missing 33 seconds was a deceptive edit". Yes, the rules are simple, a contentious claims should be attributed. Note here that Politico doesn't claim "deceptive editing" in their own voice. ] The operation is known for its hidden-camera interviews in which it looks to lure members of established news outlets into making supposedly compromising ethical statements. It has been criticized for deceptively editing footage to misrepresent the subjects’ comments.. If Politico is unwilling to say it in their own voice why should we? Do your proposed sources state in their own voice that PV is known for deceptive edits? Springee (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, also note that Mona Charen works for a right-wing think-tank and Hoyt's opinion was written before O'Keefe settled and paid $100,000 in compensation, and before the GAO produced its report showing no evidence of financial mismanagement by ACORN. Sal at PV is cherry-picking. Very much on-brand for Project Veritas. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000, re Are you going to reject every source by opining that they are left-leaning?: from past experience, that is exactly what defenders of every right-wing grifter do. The right has built a walled garden of media that is effectively insulated from disconfirming fact, and presents all mainstream and fact-based sources as "left wing" because admitting that reality-based and conservative-leaning are antonyms would be saying the quiet part out loud. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• They are "known for producing deceptively edited videos". Other than their fairly limited cult following, that's what's most notable about them. GMG 00:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I know they produce hidden camera "sting" videos but I don't know if the videos are deceptively edited. Politico said they were criticised for it but didn't say they are known for it. Springee (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You are doing it again. I gave cites. First you twice complained about Vox. I didn't cite Vox. Now it's Politico. I didn't cite Polico either. I don't cite controversial sources. These are straw men, and it's getting tiresome. And frankly, I can't imagine how anyone can see these videos as non-deceptive. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

How you imagine things is fine but it's OR to base the article text on your POV vs what RS say. As for "doing it again", no, I cited Politico above. I looked at your list of sources. Not one says, "PV is known for deceptively edited videos". So how can we have text that says, in Wiki voice, "PV is known for deceptively edited videos" if none of the sources say that? Based on the Politico summary I think something like Sal at PV said but pushed towards Politico's version would be acceptable. Perhaps a compromise is follow something like what Politico said, "PV is known for hidden-camera videos intending to discredit established news outlets by capturing statements that suggest compromised ethics. It has been criticized for misrepresenting the video subjects through deceptive editing". This would put the part that I think all would agree could be in Wiki voice (they do "sting" hidden camera videos) with the part that, thus far, no source says in their own voice "the videos in general are deceptively edited" kept as an attributed statement. Note that none of the sources here say PV is known for deceptive editing even if they say some of their videos were deceptively edited or they have been criticized for deceptive editing. Springee (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not my opinion or my imagination. This is what RS say. Do they all use those exact words in that exact order? No. They don't have to. The current text accurately summarizes RS. O3000 (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

So now you are suggesting it's OK to not follow what RS are actually saying. I understand that sometimes we summarize RSs. However, when doing so we need to make sure we don't claim more than the summary of the sources. You don't have any RS saying PV is known for deceptive edits thus per WP:V you can't summarize the sources with that phrasing. If other sources exist that support that specific text fine but extending the summary to beyond what the sources say is WP:OR. Springee (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's policy. If it's in quotes, it must be a quote. It isn't in quotes. It does say what the preponderance of RS say, with no exaggeration. O3000 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are simply wrong. If no source says "known for X" then you may not summarize the sources as such. To do so is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Springee (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, AFL-CIO cedrtainly seem to think so: . Nieman Lab says they are widely criticised for it . The Intercept doesn't say deceptive, they cut the crap and go with "mendacious" . NPR says they edited video "in deceiving ways" . Washington Post says they use "deceptive tactics" . Even Florida Man knows about "Project Veritas’s deceptive techniques and splashy videos" . What's much harder to find is anything approaching a credible source that describes PV as anything other than deceptive. It's not an honest enterprise, it's just another bunch of dark money funded right-wing grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I'm not claiming PV videos aren't deceptively edited. I think people are confusing "expecting editors to follow WP:V and WP:NOR" with generalized defending of PV. I see two issues with the part of the lead in question. Fist, I personally think the bar for describing the something negative about anyone or thing in Wikivoice should be very high. Thus even though we have a number of source that say "deceptive edit" we should still attribute that (see how Politico did it). Something like "widely criticized" would be appropriate in this case. Second, where are the sources that say the organization "is known for". This suggests that John Q Public is going to associate the organization with "deceptive edits", not sting hidden camera videos or something else. That is a violation of WP:OR since we don't have sources that support it. Springee (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I have tried and failed to find any source about PV that is both reliable and treats them as an honest endeavour. Feel free to drop some here. In the absence of such sources, the consensus of RS we cite is that they are deceptive, so we can describe them as such in Wiki-voice wihtout violating NPOV, as GreenMeansGo says below. The main source of argumentation against this is Sal, who works for them. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are. I'm saying "known for" suggests what the public or some other unknown entity thinks of when they think of PV. We don't have sources saying that thus saying "PV is known for X" is WP:OR. Saying "PV is widely accused of X" is not. We do have source saying the edits are deceptive so say that. Again, given the negative claim I think it should not be in Wiki-voice though I will concede the argument that enough reliable sources have said it. Springee (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee that's relatively easy to fix. Just say "The group produces deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups". That's a documented fact. Or "The group uses deceptive tactics to produce videos attacking media organizations and left-leaning groups", which is equally true and encompasses both the selective editing and the deceptions they use to gain access. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

While I object on principle to using wikivoice for negative, subjective characterizations, your suggestion would address my objection. Springee (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: If it helps end this discussion, I would accept "The group uses deceptive tactics," as JzG suggested. O'Keefe has himself stated that "We do use deception as a means to gain access to people." Sal at PV (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

And that mischaracterizes the issue entirely. Let's not act like we're talking about Candid Camera. You know, no way people lose their job, get dragged into court, or get charged with a felony or anything. All in good fun. We'll all have a laugh about it over drinks later. GMG 20:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Deceptive tactics" was JzG's idea, not mine. Pardon me for showing support for a suggestion that would satisfy all sides in the discussion. JzG's suggestion would also resolve Springee's issue with using Wiki-voice inappropriately. The language is factually accurate, doesn't whitewash the organization, and can encompass "deceptively edited" for those who wish to read it that way. Let's just settle on this and move on. Sal at PV (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, at this point DR may be needed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Probably would be helpful. It would allow people to sort out and align what the source actually say with the statements in the lead. Perhaps then we can find the source that actually says "known for". Springee (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• (9,000 edit conflicts later) If we're writing about...I dunno...Usain Bolt, we don't necessarily need to have a direct quote saying he is "widely considered to be the greatest sprinter of all time." We're perfectly capable of looking at a pile of secondary sources that describe him as the greatest, pointing, and going "that's awfully wide". When the preponderance of sources describe PV in the context of things they deceptively edited, and/or feel the need to put them in the context of that history, then Misplaced Pages is the tertiary source that summarizes the content of these secondary sources.

Yes, it's often quite nice when we enjoy the luxury of tertiary sources describing the secondary sources describing the primary sources. But requiring it is getting more into MEDRS territory, rather than the normal standard that is applied in the editorial decision making process across non-medical articles. GMG 12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: If you support the language in the Usain Bolt article saying "widely considered," why wouldn't you support language in the PV article saying "widely criticized" (as Springee proposed)? If the lead sentence about Usain Bolt were equivalent to the current language about PV, it would say that Usain Bolt is "known for being the greatest sprinter of all time" - which is obviously not NPOV, since that assertion is not a fact, but a widely held opinion. Just like the assertion about PV - a widely held opinion about the organization that has been contested by prominent journalists and thus should not be expressed in Misplaced Pages's voice without attribution. Sal at PV (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Because one of these is a superlative that is clearly a matter of opinion and comparative ranking, in the sense of "Project Veritas is widely considered among the most deceptive such organizations." That the primary factor in the notoriety of PV in secondary sources derives from repeated, industrial and intentional lying is simply a matter of fact, and a fair summation of the content of the sources. In comparison, Gavrilo Princip surely did lots of things during his time on Earth, but he's pretty clearly notable for one specific type of thing in particular.

I'm sorry you take issue with that. Maybe you should find a job with someone that doesn't lie for a living. GMG 15:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

break o'convenience

So the state of play so far, two users object, one with a massive COI vs 5(?) users who say its fine. I think we have a consensus here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, Sal is perfectly able to make suggestions or start discussions, but their opinion doesn't really factor into the determination of consensus... at all. GMG 15:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Never said they could not state an opinion, they have now done so exhaustively. We now either need others to chime in, close or escalate to DR. Not just make the same points over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, Sal has been doing nothing else for months. It's here because Sal is consistently not getting the answer PV wants. Some see this as a feature, not a bug. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG I see this as a compelling rationale that the user is not operating in good faith, and is intent on wasting an indefinite amount of community time. Some might say they are here for some purpose other than building an encyclopedia. Perhaps we ought to consider "broader community input". GMG 23:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, I see it as an article subject who does not believe in our core values. Which is not quite the same thing. PV, as an enterprise, certainly does not act in good faith, but I think Sal's issue is primarily that he does not get it. For multiple values of it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

So I will ask again, which source says PV "is known for X"? "Is known for" is different than "produces X" or "had made X". Is known for says this is the public's(?) perception of the group. "Produces" or "had made" doesn't imply some general knowledge and speaks only to the actions of the group. 5:2 doesn't matter if we are violating the OR policy. Springee (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe there has already been a fairly decent job done of addressing this point. You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't constitute a requirement for others to continue to repeat what's already been said. At some point WP:1AM starts to come into play there. GMG 15:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

6(?). GMG's characterization is accurate. Not sure why WP:OR was raised, as the article's lead seems exhaustively sourced. François Robere (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It was raised because none of the sources are saying "known for" which implies a general, public understanding. I was clearly not successfully conveying the issue though Guy did understand the issue I was concerned about and proposed a change that would address it. ] When dealing with "unpopular" groups we should strive to be our most clear cut and objective and be most cautious about not embellishing things that RSs are actually saying (part of a general philosophy of "do no harm"). I think it would be good practice to avoid, as often as possible saying clearly negative, subjective things about any article subject in Wiki-voice but as I said earlier, I would certainly concede the number of RS saying deceptive editing is more than we would usually require for wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The principle of doing no harm cuts both ways. We do not wish to do harm to subjects because we take undue liberties with our articles. But we also do not wish to do harm to readers by couching widely accepted facts in vague language and euphemisms. I'm sure the public relations folks at PV take none-too-kindly to that. But they're not the first people to show up peeved because Misplaced Pages wont fall in line with their narrative as poor misunderstood journalistic vigilantes, and they wont be the last.

If they want to change that, then they need to stop sending employees to argue on noticeboards, and go do the kinds of things that get them widespread secondary coverage for their journalistic prowess and integrity, and not one or two dissenting opinion pieces that themselves recognize they are in the vast minority. It wouldn't be the first Misplaced Pages has changed course on an organization, both as source and subject. But whining about it isn't the way to do it. They can go ask Breitbart how well that's worked out for them so far. GMG 12:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, theya re actually known for remarkably little. In as much as they are known, it is for this. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If they are known for remarkably little then I'm not sure how we can claim "they are known for". I think you already found better phrasing by just saying "they have " rather than suggest a survey found this is what people know of them. Springee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, see the second hal;f of the sentence. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that PV's deceptively edited videos targeted specific, named living people and implied extremely serious wrongdoing by them. Wording absolutely anything in the PV article in a way that remotely implies that there may be a sliver of truth to that therefore raises far more serious WP:BLP issues. There is little risk of harm to PV because their reputation is already, obviously, as an organization that releases deceptively-edited videos; but there is significant and serious risk of harm to their victims if we hem and haw about it or try to WP:FALSEBALANCE our way out of saying anything at all. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think it would be good practice to avoid, as often as possible saying clearly negative, subjective things about any article subject in Wiki-voice. There is nothing subjective about the fact that PV's videos are deceptively edited; it is objective, widely-reported fact. People can still disagree about such facts (and it's naturally expected that for a highly partisan subject like PV, both it the foot-soldiers in its cause would strenuously disagree with any facts that make them look bad); this does not free us from our responsibility to accurately cover them according to the most reliable sources we have. But beyond that, I strenuously and completely disagree with your argument that even things you personally feel are "subjective" and negative cannot be stated in wiki-voice. Our obligation as an encyclopedia is to cover the truth according to the best sources available; if we hedge on it and censor ourselves out of fear that what those sources say is too "negative", we are doing far more harm both to our projects and to the people involved. For example, in the particular example at hand, you are arguing that we should essentially smear PV's victims by implying, despite overwhelming consensus among reliable sources otherwise, that there is a possibility that they are actually guilty of the misdeeds PV has falsely accused them of. We minimize such harm to subjects by hewing as closely as possible to what the sources say, not by censoring it into the sort of groundless WP:FALSEBALANCE you are suggesting here. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Aquillion, exactly. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that isn't your POV. I prefer that Misplaced Pages should as much as possible deliver information in an impartial tone and avoid trying to paint scarlet letters on any article subject no matter how much we personally think they deserve it. Rather than use labels or generalizations we should be able to let the evidence support the conclusion rather than just reporting the conclusion. My version errors on the side of not condemning (or praising) enough while yours risks condemning too much. I understand this has, in the past, put us on opposing sides of edit discussions and each of us have had examples where consensus ended up supporting our respective points of view. Springee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously high-quality sourcing is needed when saying exceptional things, but if we avoid clearly stating, as fact, a conclusion that is overwhelmingly reported as fact by high-quality reliable sources, we are using WP:WEASEL / MOS:ALLEGED words to cast doubt on it, which is a form of POV-pushing.

More importantly, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the equivocation you are requesting that we inject here would functionally mean that we would be, in the article voice, lending our weight to the possibility that the accusations they have leveled against specific living people might (contrary to all reliable sourcing) be true. This is obviously unacceptable - you say want to avoid what you identify as unwarranted "red letters of shame"; but in practice, if you base editorial decisions on that subjective feeling of "is this the unvarnished hard truth, or is it just a red letter of shame" rather than on reliable sourcing and due weight, you end up simply pushing the article voice towards whatever point of view you personally feel is more reasonable rather than what the sources say.

I do not think this is your intent, but in practice your position here means that any assertion you personally find objectionable can easily become a "red letter" in your head; and your views on that are inevitably biased by your outlook on the world. In a case like this, your insistence on a subjective standard of "avoid red-letter descriptions Springee finds objectionable" inevitably puts you in a position where you are pushing for a version that lends unwarranted credibility to smears against targets you view less favorably, because the content of PD's smears reads to you as less objectionable or obviously-alarming and, therefore, less worthy of concern than the well-cited and (among reliable sources) uncontested fact that they are baseless smears.

That sort of thing is why we need to base our coverage on what the actual sources say and the relative weight they require, not on subjective touchy-feely sense of "well, this is what Springee's gut finds to be an unacceptable red-letter claim." Yes, more exceptional judgements require high-quality sources, and we can reasonably disagree over what's exceptional or what sources are good enough, but at the end of the day we go with what those sources say - not your gut feeling of "this is too spicy for me, whatever the sources say." We can assess and weigh the sources, but it is ultimately not your call (or mine!) what is or isn't appropriate to report as fact, and you need to stop trying to substitute your perspective for that of the sources in that regard.

Impartiality (to the extent that it is possible) can come only from hewing closely to the sources; when we have overwhelming statements of fact from high-quality sources and no comparable sources disagreeing with them, it is entirely inappropriate to occlude or tone down what they. You can say "we need better sources for this" or "I don't think the sources say this", absolutely. You cannot reasonably say "this statement can never be made as fact in the article voice, no matter what, regardless of the level and unanimity of sources." When you reach that point you are no longer writing an encyclopedia - you are substituting your own judgement for those of the sources. (And apologies if you wouldn't go that far, but that is the sense I am generally getting from your statements - that you take issue with large swaths of the media, and feel that there are some things that, even if they are widely reported as fact, cannot be reported the same way here, because you personally think they are subjective.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that saying that attributing accusations against PV in general terms (ie "widely considered" vs "X, Y and Z consider" would suggest anything PV did was right or valid. I feel that is just as much a stretch as the one you feel I am making. As for "what actual sources say", this seems to vary. For example, Politico used an attributed claim, something like "critics accuse PV of...". But moving this a bit beyond PV, what if 5 sources say "critics say X is a racist organization" and 2 sources say "X is a racist organization". How do we average the difference? What if 16 other sources don't mention racism when talking about X? How do we decide the few sources that take an interest in what appears to be an ideological opponent are really impartially summarizing vs adding a bit of subjective editorializing into an otherwise reasonably factual article? How do we handle a case when many sources simply don't use the label or negative claim when discussing X? Understand that much of my concern here is systemic things I've seen with Misplaced Pages vs a specific wish to replace the unsupported claim "known for deceptive editing" with something like "produces deceptively edited videos". I think your comment, "in practice your position here means that any assertion you personally find objectionable can easily become a "red letter" in your head; and your views on that are inevitably biased by your outlook on the world." can be turned around just as easily. When we see say an organization described as Z in some but not all sources do we take that to mean 100% of sources think the organization is Z (ie those that didn't say would have objected if they disagreed)? The issue isn't that I'm trying to say a source didn't claim organization X was racist. The issue is I'm trying to say that if "racist" is a negative thing then we need to make sure it's damn near universally used as a descriptor before we apply it in Wiki voice. That means if 5 of 10 sources say racist and the others don't, we attribute. If 4 of 10 say "is racist" while the other 6 say "accused of racism" then we do not say "is racist" in wiki voice. You seem to be suggesting I'm saying tone down what the sources say. No, I'm saying we need to show this is a near universal position before we state it in Wiki voice. If only half state in their own voice while have attribute, we attribute. As a point of reference, I would be interested to know how other encyclopedias handle such negative assertions/descriptors? Springee (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Current language accurately summarizes the situation; naturally, the subject disagrees, and disingenuously pretends there is substantial controversy. Tough; NPOV does not mean we accept a fictitious narrative being pushed by an employee of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is there really a point in keeping this open? It's going on a week and half now and the entire thread has been everyone taking turns arguing against the same two users, one of whom is an employee. We have fairly well moved from a lack of consensus to change the article, to an affirmative consensus to keep it the same. I believe there is an essay floating around somewhere about trying to win a content dispute through sheer willingness to indefinitely belabor the same argument until the other side wanders off to go do something actually productive. GMG 11:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, take out the one wp:coi editor and it is one against many, even with its two against many. This really has run its course.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Slatersteven, could I ask if you understand what part I'm opposed to? I don't support much of what Sal at PV is suggesting. My only concern here is the easily correctable OR stating what PV is "widely known for". I understand that there isn't much difference between saying they engage in vs they are known for but when editors say we need to strictly follow the sources, well why have "known for". That said, I'm certainly not interested in editing the article. Springee (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

• The Misplaced Pages War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be: An editing battle over Kamala Harris’s race is a sign of what’s to come. --The Atlantic

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Global Center to Combat Extremism

• Global Center to Combat Extremism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While recently removing a questionable source from various articles I fell on this one. Unless I'm mistaken, this is a Salafi "anti-extremist" center? Considering the strange source I removed there, I welcome interested editors to evaluate the quality of the other sources and of the article itself. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Falkland Islanders

More comments are requested at Talk:Falkland_Islanders#Request_for_comment_on_whether_the_claim_"Falklanders_can_claim_Argentine_citizenship"_is_OR_and_violates_NPOV. Thanks. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Radio Farda

Radio Farda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like there is some POV pushing going on, but I am having trouble figuring out what the NPOV should be. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Oleandrin

Heads up, this heretofore-obscure article will need patrolling. Oleandrin has recently become the subject of unsupported claims that it cures or otherwise treats COVID-19. See this Axios article for details. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Can all sources still treated as valid despite a considerable time has passed and proved that the interpretation in that source is not true ?

Not all news-articles or sources maintain a neutral point of view nor have a true depiction of the fact. There are a few articles that still have some claims based out of old sources which have been proved wrong by little more recent sources. If there are recent sources of information that have a better factual and intelligent interpretation of facts, can those sources be treated as a reason to correct the articles ? If so, will it be appropriate for someone to raise a flag saying that it's in violation of WP:NPOV if such edits are reverted by another editor/author ? RamRaghubn (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Without some examples its hard to say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources can become outdated. And we do favor updated sources over outdated ones. To know whether a specific source has become outdated, we would need to look at the specific source in question. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

But it depends a lot on what is meant by "outdated", the implication of "little more recent sources" is something rather less then modern Vs old scholarship, so much as a new theory that may not in fact even be a mainstream view yet. So we also have to take into account issues like wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a complicated question. For example, Robert Blake's biography of Disraeli is now over fifty years old, but it's still the modern standard. It's been supplemented by other books. Adam Kirsch's recent short volume on Disraeli's Jewishness is probably preferred over Blake on that topic because Kirsch focused on that aspect of Disraeli's life. Kirsch himself discusses Blake as the standard biography and relies on him; anyone writing about Disraeli today will spend some time explaining the relationship of their work to Blake's, and possibly also to Monypenny & Buckle, the previous standard biography. Blake himself discussed at length how his approach was different from M&B; this included (a) using sources that M&B did not have access to, (b) using sources that M&B deliberately suppressed, and (c) his own judgments and interpretations, which he clearly indicated in the main text. Moving back to the general, a source can be old but not outdated. In an ideal world, newer sources explicitly state that the old source has been superseded. In a less ideal world, if we're confronted with sources that appear to conflict but no reliable sources have stated that they conflict, then that's a judgment call. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm also in the depends camp. The Mother Jones report on the Ford Pinto has not aged well. An article on best practices in surgical methods is like to age out rather quickly. An article on the contemporary capabilities of the world wide web even more so! However, a 100 year old text book talking about the fundamental statics and the equations of beam deflection is just as valid today as it was back then. I think this is something where you have to see if newer work has invalidated the older work. Springee (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the question relates to news reports... which can become outdated rather quickly. If we state something as fact, based on a news report, and subsequent reporting updates what that original report says, we SHOULD update what we say to match the subsequent updated news reports. However, This does not mean we must always remove the content... sometimes, how the press reported on an event is part of the story we need to tell... and if so, we can note that “initial reporting said X, but subsequent reporting said Y.” Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of speculating about generalities or discussing my favorite case of sources, I took a look at RamRaghubn's recent edits and found this. RamRaghubn, nowhere in either the article history edit summaries nor in the talk page discussion do you identify any supposed "more recent sources" which prove that this removal is justified. If you want to claim that a new source supersedes and older one, you need to actually present it and not make a vague handwave to newer sources exist. As it stands now, your removal is not justified under WP:NPOV or the sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Slatersteven, User:Blueboar, User:Eggishorn, User:Springee, and User:Mackensen that definitely has helped to get a definite answer to my question. RamRaghubn (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Then wp:notnews comes into it. I have long argued we should wait at least a month before having articles on current events. But "it depends" still applies. More recent does not always mean "more accurate" in news stories.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Attribution to mediaeval chroniclers

For the Fourth Crusade's 1204 Sack of Constantinople in relation to the Hagia Sophia, is it preferable to attribute statements made (uncorroborated) by contemporary Byzantine politician and chronicler Nicetas Choniates? For context Choniates was the most important senator in the Byzantine Senate and the head of the imperial civil service until a palace coup caused a change in emperors and Choniates fell from power. Ultimately the political instability lead to the Crusaders sacking Hagia Sophia along with the rest of the city, which Choniates fled as the enemy arrived. He then composed the rest of his chronicles at the Byzantine rump state of Nicaea. Needless to say, as an embittered medieval non-eyewitness writing in a high rhetorical style for a political audience at time of military occupation and sectarian warfare, his is not the most neutral of accounts, though it is by far the longest, most detailed, and most frequently quoted, as well as the most sensational. (Latin sources don't breathe a word on the entire matter.) In detail it is wholly uncorroborated. At present, his account is summarized briefly in its essentials, and the report attributed to him at the relevant place in the article.

Note that Nicetas Choniates never claimed to have witnessed what he described as having been rumoured to have happened in Hagia Sophia. Choniates wrote:

The report of the impious acts perpetrated in the Great Church are unwelcome to the ears. The table of sacrifice, fashioned from every kind of precious material and fused by fire into one whole-blended together into a perfection of one multicolored thing of beauty, truly extraordinary and admired by all nations-was broken into pieces and divided among the despoilers, as was the lot of all the sacred church treasures, countless in number and unsurpassed in beauty. They found it fitting to bring out as so much booty the all-hallowed vessels and furnishings which had been wrought with incomparable elegance and craftsmanship from rare materials. In addition, in order to remove the pure silver which overlay the railing of the bema, the wondrous pulpit and the gates, as well as that which covered a great many other adornments, all of which were plated with gold, they led to the very sanctuary of the temple itself mules and asses with packsaddles; some of these, unable to keep their feet on the smoothly polished marble floors, slipped and were pierced by knives so that the excrement from the bowels and the spilled blood defiled the sacred floor. Moreover, a certain silly woman laden with sins , an attendant of the Erinyes, the handmaid of demons, the workshop of unspeakable spells and reprehensible charms, waxing wanton against Christ, sat upon the synthronon and intoned a song, and then whirled about and kicked up her heels in dance.

A dispute has arisen over whether we can say in Wikivoice that these things (the possessed woman, the disembowelled pack-animals) happened for real without attributing them to their partisan 13th-century author as would normally be done for any topic in pre-modern history. Objections to using Nicetas Choniates's name to attribute statements appear to be based on the absence of such an attribution in some non-academic works and various media, particularly this quotation from Vryonis, S. Jr. Byzantium and Europe. (Library of European Civilization) London: Thames & Hudson, 1967. The omission of crucial details about sourcing from the work is hardly surprising, it being a pop-history work of fewer than 200 pages and covering an entire civilization of a millennium's durance without footnotes for the general reader. Nevertheless, because a passage of Vryonis's book is quoted by a psychologist non-historian in Falk, A. Franks and Saracens: Reality and Fantasy in the Crusades. Karnac, 2010 as an illustration of how "the Greek historian Speros Vyronis gave us a vivid account", a question has been raised as to whether we should repeat the sloppy usages of these two non-specialist and non-academic works, or else follow normal historiographical practice and relate claims of historical accounts to the people that wrote them. Another non-specialist and non-academic work that treats Choniates's account as fact without attributing it is Roudometof, V. Globalization and Orthodox Christianity: The Transformations of a Religious Tradition. Routledge, 2013, which devotes all of half a page to the Sack of Constantinople.

Previous discussion on this subject is to be found at Talk:Hagia_Sophia#Questions. GPinkerton (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Unintended but systematic bias regarding religion in 1st millennium

Reading through a lot of articles about historical figures, I've noticed that there is a very strong bias for how to report the religion on historical individuals. As I guess most know, Christianity grew apart during the 1st millennium resulting in the Great Schism of 1054 formally splitting Christianity into Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Since both claim to be the "original" church, the Catholic POV is that Christianity prior to 1054 was Catholic and the Orthodox POV is that it was Orthodox. In most articles on religion, WP deals quite well with this, finding the proper balance. However, for historical figures there is a strong bias in that famous Christians in the West are routinely claimed to have been "Catholics": the likes of Clovis I, Chlothar I, Charlemagne etc. are all claimed to have been Roman Catholics long before the schism, thus taking the Catholic POV that Christianity prior to 1054 was Catholic. For historical figures in the East, it looks very different: the likes of Vladimir the Great, Saint Helena, John Chrysostom are not claimed as Orthodox. Instead, they are given as 'Chalcedonian Christianity' or 'Nicene Christianity'. These descriptions are accurate, I'd say, as they avoid claiming the individuals as "Catholic" or "Orthodox". However, if one takes a step back, it does look like a systematic albeit unintended bias. If WP claims famous Western Christians as "Catholics" but refuses to call famous Eastern Christians "Orthodox", then we are in fact adhering to the Catholic POV. Fortunately, the solution is simple: I suggest that infoboxes of famous persons who died prior to 1054 should not claim they were "Catholic" or "Orthodox", as both are POV, and instead stick to the neutral and factual 'Chalcedonian christianity' that many infoboxes already use. Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Two problems:

First. the Council of Chalcedon was in 451. You are proposing assigning "Chalcedonian Christianity" to the entire 1st millennium. Would you call Nestorius a Chalcedonian Christian?

The First seven ecumenical councils were:

1. The First Council of Nicaea in 325
2. The First Council of Constantinople in 381
3. The Council of Ephesus in 431
4. The Council of Chalcedon in 451
5. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553
6. The Third Council of Constantinople from 680 to 681
7. The Second Council of Nicaea in 787

• The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church accept all seven.
• The Oriental Orthodox Churches accept only the first three.
• The Church of the East accepts only the first two.

Second, you are assuming that the East–West Schism of 1054 is when the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church split. That was the final step, but the beginnings of the split go at least as far back as the Photian schism from 863 to 867 and it could be argued that the last time the two were completely unified was in the reign of Theodosius I (379– to 395) -- the last Emperor to rule both the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire.

• view
• talk
• edit

(Not shown are ante-Nicene, nontrinitarian, and restorationist denominations.)

So the solution for Misplaced Pages is not as simple as you suggest. You need to look at each biography and make a decision based upon geographical location and the complex history of the early Christian church. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That should be "since the Acacian schism (484–519)", and for this purpose, Theodosius was far from the last emperor to rule east and west; the return of Rome to the empire in the 6th century enabled the Byzantine Papacy until the 8th. I agree with the OP, though, that the situation of many saints and other worthies is quite irregular and often seeks to claim denominational allegiance wholly anachronistically, but then, some of them are venerated only in either east or west, but sometimes formerly in both. State church of the Roman Empire is much-neglected in terms of links to it. GPinkerton (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, that graphic will need updating if the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church don't sort out their mutual excommunications over Ukraine. GPinkerton (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles should useg commonly understood terms. Since Chalcedonian Christian is not commonly understood, we would have to explain it in each article it is added to. I don't see the problem anyway with describing Charlemagne and his successors as Roman Catholic. The recognized the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, as the spiritual authority within their realms. Whether or not the bishops of Constantinople were in full, partial or no communion with Rome at the time is of little relevance. In any case, we should be guided by what secondary sources do. AFAIK they use the term Catholic. TFD (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The common terms Latin Catholic and Latin Christianity are available, do not require exact affiliations and communions, redirecting to Latin Church, which is very often what is meant by "Roman Catholic", especially in the 1st millenium. I'm not sure Nicene Christianity is so uncommonly understood as Chalcedonian Christianity, so that's an option too. GPinkerton (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Frank Gehry

My evaluation of the article is that it unduly leans towards embellishing favorable points of view and make excessive use of direct opinion quotes and quotations of subject'self statements. There is an excessive amount of indiscriminate images as well. Furthermore, the article contains editorialized puffery like "prestigious" "famous" that are not properly cited or cited at all. I've made changes to those and left detailed edit, but it has not been a productive engagement with My Beyond My Ken and I would like additional inputs and edit.

" This designation stems from the Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of Morphosis, as well as the famous schools of architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (co‑founded by Mayne), UCLA, and USC, where Gehry is a member of the board of directors."

"Gehry is known for his sometimes cantankerous personality. During a trip to Oviedo, Spain, to accept the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award in October 2014, he received a significant amount of attention, both positive and negative, for publicly flipping off a reporter at a press conference who accused him of being a "showy" architect." (this is unsupportable for sources provided within the article) Graywalls (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Since Graywalls has not made any argument on the article talk page to support his edits, and instead came here, this is forumshopping before the fact. If Graywalls makes arguments on the article page and is not successful, and he feels that his arguments have been treated unfairly, then he can come here, but NPOVN is not intended to be a substitute for discussion on the article talk page.I will move Graywalls comment verbatim to the article talk page, so that discussion can begin there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Everything I've done is explained in summary. You continue to restore things including weasel words that can not be attributed to sources, so this is a NPOV issue. Graywalls (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This looks to me like a routine content dispute that should be discussed and debated in detail at Talk:Frank Gehry. I see that a discussion is in its early stages there. Why bring this here at this time, Graywalls? Cullen Let's discuss it 02:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've browsed through the talk history; as well as user continuing to restore weasel that can not be substantiated by sources. I felt it'd be better to have neutral set of eyes look over. Graywalls (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how the talk page looks to me, Graywalls. Haven't you been asked to explain and discuss your edits? That is your responsibility if you want your edits to stand. You need consensus. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

NYPD article lead again: "crime rate has declined", "public support for the NYPD"

Editors on the NYPD article keep edit-warring text into the lead that says:

• "The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades"
• "public support for the NYPD is generally favorable"

None of this content is covered in the body. Furthermore, the poll used to support the claim that public support for the NYPD is favorable also says that most respondents consider "police corruption" and "police brutality" to be serious problems. It seems like a clear-cut NPOV problem to only mention parts of a poll that are positive while omitting mixed or negative parts. That said, I'm generally very opposed to including survey results in leads unless its for organizations or policies whose notability and importance is tied to their level of public support (e.g. Social Security, the War on Terror, Obamacare) or whose level of public support is unique. The mention of the "crime rate" was addressed in a previous NPOV discussion (this board unanimously rejected its inclusion), but has been added again. The suggestion to readers is that the NYPD is the reason for the declining crime rate, which is not substantiated by the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"including survey results in leads" If it not covered in the body, it should not be included in the lead. However it is reasonable to include survey results in the body. The declining crime rate should not be attributed to the NYPD when no sources support the connection. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please note there was a recent RFC on this issue, which is probably worth taking into consideration: Talk:New_York_City_Police_Department#RfC_on_neutrality_of_lead Tobus (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is Snooganssnoogans who is edit warring. Their version which is only negative is clearly disfavored per this discussion (it was an RfC, but was never officially closed). We can see in the edit history there was ongoing effort from all editors to develop consensus. Weeks later (waiting to see if certain editors would be out of the way?) Snooganssnoogans shows up again and tries to implement a POV lead that does not mention that the NYPD has public support, but does mention criticism. Yeah, the polling does mention negative aspects, but it also mentions the positive ones. The argument about WP:LEAD is irrelevant - the solution is to add that material to the body, not to make the lead be all negative and thus create a misrepresentation of what people and sources think of the NYPD. The article is not a WP:SOAPBOX for summer 2020 Defund the Police activism. I also see no reason not to include the crime stats. The part about crime declining could be discussed IMO (I haven't checked the sources thoroughly), but Snooganssnoogans ran here instead in favor of a version that obviously fails NPOV. Crossroads 01:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

My behavior is entirely in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines. I have reverted newly added content to the lead. The content in question was contested, is not in the body, and has the support of only two editors. That is entirely consistent with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. After one of my reverts, I sought input on the NPOV noticeboard and received unanimous support for my proposed revert (removing text which claimed that the broken windows policy brought down the crime rate). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Newly added" 3 weeks ago. And you were apparently fine with the public support aspect then, but then tried to remove it now. Hmm. The "not in the body" aspect has been taken care of. Crossroads 02:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What a strange attempt at a gotcha. I literally added the full poll results for actual balance and to reflect what the source said, which is what NPOV requires (and what the crux of my complain is about). When you say the body aspect has been "taken care of", you're referring to you just now copy-pasting the exact same sentences from the lead into the body. That's WP:TENDENTIOUS and inconsistent with the spirit of the WP:LEAD which is that the lead is supposed to be constructed from the body, not vice versa. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Not tendentious or against any perceived "spirit" at all. It should have been covered in the body no matter what and now it is. Crossroads 03:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• The full sentence in question is: "The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades and public support for the NYPD is generally favorable, although critics highlight instances of police brutality and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality."

It is intended, as per the RFC, to be a more neutral statement than: "The NYPD has an extensive history of police brutality, misconduct, and corruption, as well as discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality. Critics, including from within the NYPD, have accused the NYPD of rampantly manipulating crime statistics. The NYPD has a culture of retaliation against whistleblowers and resisting attempts at criminal justice reform."

I feel like both the context and the content have been misconstrued here and would advise reviewers not to take the complainant's statement as a necessarily accurate representation, and to look at the Talk page discussion and Edit History in making your assessment. In particular, contrary to the opening paragraph of this discussion:

* There is no edit war

* The phrases raised for review are the results of an RFC to bring NPOV to the lede

* Corruption and brutality *are* mentioned, in the very same sentence

* There are no survey results in the lede (although a poll and a news article on a survey are used as references)

* The previous NPOV disucssion was about the mention of broken windows policing, not "crime rate".

* The text removed after the previous NPOV discussion has not been added again.

* The lede does not suggest that the NYPD is responsible for the decline in crime (it suggests that the decline in crime is responsible for the general public support of the NYPD)

Tobus (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Most of those bullet points are inaccurate or misleading. You've edit-warred text that does not have consensus into the lead. No RfC has been conducted on the language you want in the lead and no one except you and Crossroads have advocated for the language that is under dispute. I want to highlight the last bullet point: "The lede does not suggest that the NYPD is responsible for the decline in crime (it suggests that the decline in crime is responsible for the general public support of the NYPD)" – There is absolutely nothing in the body of the Misplaced Pages article or in any of the sources for this iffy-sounding causal claim. It's absurd that it's in the lead of a major article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The phrasing implies connections between the police, the fall in crime and police popularity, which is implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've re-removed the phrase about the drop in crime rates. Crossroads 02:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a geniune connection between the fall in crime and police popularity that is well documented and isn't being disputed (eg ), it's the connection between the NYPD and lower crime that is controversial... is there a better way to phrase it to avoid the SYNTH concerns? Tobus (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your source says, "Residents’ perception of the level of crime and disorder in their neighborhood was a significant factor shaping their opinion of the police." It doesn't say that if crime rates drop that makes the police popular. The data could probably be interpreted differently anyway. Middle class people like police and live in safe neighborhoods. Poor people are less likely to like police and more likely to live in cheaper, higher crime neighborhoods. Middle class people are more likely to see the police as protecting them while poorer people are more likely to see them as harassing them. Gentrification in NYC has led to both lower crime and a population more likely to have a positive view of police in general. TFD (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's true that Tobus would need a source explicitly connecting (1) reduced crime to (2) public support for (3) the NYPD to add anything of that sort to the article. But, for the record, your point about poor people is unsupported and likely small in size if there is such a phenomenon. Regarding Black Americans - who are more likely than other surveyed groups to be in poverty and who frankly have the most reason to dislike police - 81% want the police to spend an equal or greater amount of time in their area (61% the same, 20% more). Crossroads 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Austrian princes
• American physicians