Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Template talk:Hanoverian princes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambiguation

[edit]

Prince George William of Hanover and Prince Christian of Hanover are disambiguation pages. Which Prince George William, and which Prince Christian did you intend to list? Or did you mean to list all five: Prince George William of Hanover (1880–1912), Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006), Prince Christian of Hanover (1885–1901), Prince Christian Oscar of Hanover, and Prince Christian of Hanover (b. 1985)? Art LaPella (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – Art LaPella (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Why are non-notable members being added back to the template? Several of these people were recently determined by consensus to not be notable enough for their own pages; therefore they should not have red links (which suggest that they would or could likely meet GNG criteria) and the WP:EXISTING exception cited in the edit summary to support re-addition cannot apply. The cited article also specifically says Unlinked text should be avoided, with the only potential exception being In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable. A dynamic genealogical list clearly doesn't meet that criterion, and the presence of the Hanoverian princes list makes it even more unnecessary to include unlinked entries in the navigation template.

Additionally, even if everyone currently could be notable enough to be red linked, and while the members are complete right now, this template still wouldn't match the exception examples given in EXISTING. Listing all the subdivisions of a geographic area makes sense because a) all the locations have the potential to become (more) notable over time; b) there are RS that have the same list in the same context; c) one can reasonably expect any future changes in the subdivisions to be reliably covered and sources updated accordingly. Likewise, the filmography of a particular notable director is temporally limited, any non-notable films they direct will still be sourceable because they were made by a notable person, and the films themselves have the potential to become notable even after the director's death. For the descendants of a defunct royal house, there can be no assumption that each past and future member has/will have sufficient coverage or any coverage at all. This leads to a situation where the number of entries increases indefinitely but also becomes more incomplete and less notable (see prior versions of the Austrian archduchesses navbox, where something like 85% of the entries were unlinked); such a format is clearly incompatible with the purpose of a navbox. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The examples listed at EXISTING are examples, not an exhaustive list. Until recently the unlinked entries had articles for many years, indicating that they were once notable enough for an article and may be so again. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are examples with fairly distinctive properties that permit red link inclusion; Hanoverian princes and all the other royalty templates clearly do not have the same properties. Regardless, per the red link guidelines, Red links should not be made to deleted articles unless the reason for the deletion of the article was not due to a lack of notability or the topic not being encyclopedic in another way. The deleted articles were all decidedly non-notable and therefore the EXISTING exception for red links does not apply. The other unlinked entries are and always have been inappropriate to include in navboxes. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meet the criteria outlined. DrKay (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the unlinked entries?
Given that the articles were deleted, it seems unlikely that they will be recreated soon.
For what it's worth, those individuals with recently delated articles are linked, albeit not through red links, on Template:British princes. Is this valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided, I believe it should be consistent amongst all templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are also red linked entries on Template:Hanoverian princesses by marriage.

Princes without Kingdom

[edit]

Since Prussia anexed Hanover in 1866, there is no Kingdom of Hanover anymore. Without a Kingdom of Hanover, how can there be Princes of the Kingdom of Hanover?

I am aware, that an WP:bold removal of all born after 1866 will cause some discussion. Therfore I want to give notice that I intend to remove them, in hope of reaching consensus before the edit. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start, Brunswick was a monarchy until 1918. Secondly, it's not up to us to decide. We go by reliable sources, and reliable sources still list the later generations among Hanoverian princes. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brunswick was never "hanoverian" in any way. The Duchy of Brunswick was rooted in the Principality of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, a junior branch devision of this Prinipalty later became the kingdom of Hanover.
For the second point: Can you list such sources? I am not aware of any, the template has of course no sources and the corresponding main article is completly unsourced since it creation. When such sources are added to the article, there is no need for a removal. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they are to be kept or removed, I think we should keep it consistent with other templates for princes of monarchies that are now abolished (i.e Template:Bavarian princes, Template:Princes of Parma, Template:Russian princes, etc.) 98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I will cite Lines of Succession (20021999) by Michael Maclagan and Jiří Louda, pp. 195–198 for all generations and Burke's Royal Families of the World (1977) volume I, pp. 162–170 and 200–201, and L'Allemagne Dynastique (1981), volume III, for generations 1-6. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Amended 14:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to be more careful with your sources. Regarding Lines of Succession, I assume you mean either the 1999 edition, pp. 195-198, or the 2002 edition, pp. 165-168. The 2002 edition pp. 195-198 does not cover any claim in this table. Also, Lines of Sucession (both editions) only lists Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick and Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (born 1914) as "Prince of Hanover" for those from generation 4+.
Would you like to revise your sources before I do? Please don't claim that a source verifies information when it doesn't. I hope you agree that disproving WP:HOAXES that you deliberately create is a waste of time. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assumptions of bad faith are uncivil. I'm content with these sources for now. There are of course dozens for each, as shown at the talk pages of those articles and simple web searches. DrKay (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I gave you the impression that I was implying bad faith. This was not my intention. However, I note that you still claim that Lines of Sucession verifies all generations, while it still only verifies those two individuals. I have the other two books not readily available, but I hope you understand, that I am highly sceptical whether those really verify the claimed titles after the experience with this first source.
There is also a difference between being called "Prince X of Z" and being a "Prince of Z". We wouldn't include Prince into a hypothetical List of Princes just because he is named Prince. And we wouldn't include Earl Barrett in a list of english Earls even though he is obvoiusly an english Earl. The burden of proof that one individual is in fact a prince is clearly higher than the simple proof that a individual is called a prince.
EDIT: An even better example is Marcus Prinz von Anhalt not beeing in the Category:Princes of Anhalt. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay I have now checked Burke's Royal Families of the World (1977) and I have to note:
1.) From reading the introduction it is clear that this source is heavily WP:BIASED towards the monarchist cause.
2.) pp. 200-201 are about the Ducal House of Brunswick. I have already explained that the House of Hanover is a branch of the House of Brunswick, not the other way round. None of these people are in the template!
3.) Again, the only individuals from this template who are labelled as Prince of Hanover in generations 4+ are Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick and Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (born 1914).
So if we count it as a reliable source on behalf of European royal/noble titles, it still only verifies 2 out of 8.
This leads me to the conclusion that at least 6 out of 8 lack WP:VERIFIABILITY. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source and it supports Ernst August born 1954 as a prince of Hanover. I note on the other hand, you've provided no sources saying he's not. DrKay (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is reliable in the matter of genealogy, but I question its reliability on behalf of European royal/noble titles. To cite WP:VERIFIABILITY: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The list of hanoverian princes would be very long, if we add any individual where no reliable source states "He is not a prince of Hanover". I assume that would make you and me hanoverian princes.
However, there is at least one source claiming Ernst August is no prince: Welt: So wurde der Adel in Deutschland abgeschafft (Translation, deepl: How the nobility was abolished in Germany) stating in the first paragraph:
Die Titel und Namen klingen einfach gut. Prinz William, Prinzessin Victoria, Fürstin Gloria oder Prinz Ernst August. In der Reihe gibt es aber zwei Fehler. Während William und Victoria in ihren Ländern Großbritannien und Schweden tatsächlich Prinz und Prinzessin sind und dem Hochadel angehören, gilt das für Gloria von Thurn und Taxis und Ernst August von Hannover keineswegs. Weder sind sie eine echte Fürstin beziehungsweise ein echter Prinz. Noch sind sie im strengen Sinn überhaupt Adlige.
Translation, deepl: The titles and names just sound good. Prince William, Princess Victoria, Princess Gloria or Prince Ernst August. But there are two mistakes in the series. While William and Victoria are indeed Prince and Princess in their countries of Great Britain and Sweden and belong to the high nobility, this is by no means the case for Gloria von Thurn und Taxis and Ernst August von Hannover. They are neither a real princess nor a real prince. Nor are they aristocrats in the strict sense of the word.
Additional sources for example: Article 109, Weimarer Reichsverfassung(1919); Gesetz über die Aufhebung der Standesvorrechte des Adels und die Auflösung der Hausvermögen (1920); Vom König zum Führer(2003) p. 202. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources saying you're a prince of Hanover, so we can't claim on wikipedia that you are one. You appear to have misunderstood NPOV. You can add a footnote to this template, as is done on other such templates, to mark titles of pretense. But you cannot remove entries when those entries are held valid by other reputable sources. If sources say they are princes, then they are included on the template and in the category. The detail of the debate can be explained, but when sources disagree we don't select one over the other, unless one view is by far the majority view. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to conclude:
For Generation 1-3: valid sources, no change.
For Generation 4+:
6 out of 8: No valid source to verify the claim they are princes of Hanover. Therfore they should be removed.
2 out of 8: Valid sources that claim they are Princes of Hanover and valid sources that claim they aren't. Therefore presenting both sides proportionatly.
Thank you for your valuable input to this debate, I will implement this later. Based on consistency this should also be applied to other templates as mentioned by the unregistered user above. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the conclusion. Do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point or right great wrongs. DrKay (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assumptions of bad faith are uncivil. I do not want to disrupt anything. I just want to remove what can't be verified and I want to add another POV to create a NPOV, where the POV is currently biased. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to follow dispute resolution or demonstrate that community consensus has changed. DrKay (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is consensus that content, which fails WP:VERIFY should be removed. Whoever wants to keep such content has to demonstrate that consensus has changed. It is also consensus, that WP:NPOV should be followed. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way out of this circle is to follow my advice, either that in the above post or that in my post of 16:31, 29 April 2024. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on keeping what is currently missing WP:VERIFY and are unwilling to provide sources to verify it, I will be forced to remove that content. If you want to restore such unsourced content, you will have to WP:PROVEIT it. I would still prefer to keep it civil and reach a consensus here on the talk page. When you are still of the opinion that there are sources that verify these individuals are attributed with the title prince of hanover (and not only styled prince X of hanover, even as a common name. You can see that the long-standing consensus is that "prince Frédéric of Anhalt"[1] and "prince Marcus of Anhalt"[2] are not considered as princes of Anhalt in wikipedia, despite beeing styled as such in the sources), please provide such sources or explain to me what I have overlooked in Lines of Succession and Burke's Royal Families of the World --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is verified. I don't mind Frédéric and Marcus being added to the Anhalt template and category on the basis of their claims, along as their claims are covered in the manner I described at 16:31, 29 April 2024. DrKay (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words: You still refuse to provide sources to verify the information, you just claim it is verified. I see no point in continuing this debate. I will remove the unverified content, and if you want to restore it, you will have to WP:PROVEIT. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I informed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany about this discussion to include additional input at this page, which is in the coresponding WikiProject scope. WP:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility is also informed. To summarise the discussion up to this point: I asked on this talk page for sources to princly titles after the abolishment of the Kingdom of Hanover in 1866. The sources provided by @DrKay: provide verification for 2 of the 8 persons in question. As @DrKay: refused to provide additional sources for the other 6, I removed those from the template. WP:VERIFY is a wikipedia policy and there should be no exceptions to it. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is easily verified by the citations I provided and the citations on each article. DrKay (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The titles existed only until 1919. Mr Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Königlicher Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland is legally just a person with a long surname. Some monarchists may consider him a prince of Hanover (a claim that is rather offensive over a century after the end of the monarchy in Germany and the abolishment of all related titles), and he himself may consider himself a prince of Great Britain, but there is no substance to either claim. I do not understand why the longer version of the template accepts the "prince of Hanover" claim but not the more plausible "prince of Great Britain and Ireland" claim for him: both are titles in pretense, and both are part of his legal name. If any "princes" born after the end of the monarchy are included in this template, they should be clearly distinguished from the real princes. —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said at 16:31, 29 April 2024 but the opening party won't accept that. DrKay (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that titles held in pretense should be clearly marked, why did you revert to a version where they are not? I think it is better to omit post-1919 "princes" than to include them without a suitable disclaimer. —Kusma (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the opening party didn't accept that and discussion was ongoing without a conclusion. When discussion is ongoing without a conclusion, the previous consensus holds until consensus is shown to have changed. DrKay (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not really correct. If every party in a discussion agrees that change A is better than the status quo than it's perfectly fine to make change A while continuing to discuss if change B might be even better. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. But not every party is (or was) agreed. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrKay I just want to note, that it is incivil behaviour to lie. Please do not claim that my position is something, that I, on multiple occasions, here and at other talk pages, already refuted. I said very early in the debate at 21:40, 27 April 2024: "When such sources are added [...], there is no need for a removal." When you misrepresent my point of view, what you did on multiple pages including WP:ANI, it is hard to assume good faith. It would be a lot more constructive, if you don't make up what opinion I have, but accept that my opinion is, what I actually say.
Back to topic: I would like to propose a consensus (a more general version of what I proposed at 17:55, 29 April 2024) that should uphold all the requirements mentioned in the debate:
We have three categories of people in such templates:
A) All reliable sources agree someone is a Prince: Keep
B) Reliable sources disagree whether someone has the title of prince: Balance case-by-case on the principle of WP:WEIGHT.
C) Reliable sources does not verify princely title: Remove
When this consensus is agreed to, we can continue with the question, what is sufficient to verify a princely title. As far as I anticipate, this is the crucial question since my comment at 21:40, 27 April 2024. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All entries are verifiable. Multiple sources have been provided, here, at the articles themselves, at those articles' talk pages and at ANI. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take this as agreement with the proposed categorization. If someone disagrees, they should say so explicitly.
I will try again to explain why I do not consider some of the people in this template to be verified by the sources. I remind all editors that the WP:BURDEN of proof rests with the editor restoring the material. Therefore, you must prove that there is still a consensus to keep the material in question, otherwise it must be removed via WP:VERIFY, especially if it relates to WP:BLP. Simply claiming that it has been verified is not sufficient proof per WP:VERIFY.
Of the people in this template, both Lines of Succession and Burke's Royal Families verify all princely titles up to Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (born 1914), for those of Prince George William of Hanover and beyond, there is simply no verification. Both books are available on archive.org, so any editor can easily verify this.
It seems a bit odd that the cut is between 1914 and 1915. But it is not for me to explain. In fact, one must be careful not to go into WP:NOR territory. I say it is simply the best way to stick to WP:VERIFY and present what is written in reliable sources.
Now that DrKay has finally delivered (though not here but at ANI, it would have been better to present it here) what other sources they meant, I can answer:
One has to understand the difference between a substantive title and a courtesy title. For example, if we take George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, who is commonly styled as Earl of St Andrews, this does not mean that he is the Earl of St Andrews, he is simply styled with a subsidiary title of his father. Therefore, we must be careful: being called by a title does not automatically mean that one actually holds that title. If we were to assume that being called by a title means that you actually have that title, we would have to rewrite a lot of articles and face a lot of resistance because we would be breaking a lot of established consensus. So I can only warn against such a precedent.
As far as I can tell from these sources, and please correct me if I am wrong, they do not explicitly claim the title in question for these people, but only style them out of courtesy.
I can only assume, not from any OR, but from what we find in RS, that in the years between 1866 and 1916 there is a shift from substantive Princley titles to informal courtesy titles. Therefore, being styled as a prince in the media does not verify the claim of being a prince. The sources provided in the rather absurd ANI case are good evidence for a common name, but not good evidence to verify a substantive title.
So I hope I could present why I do not buy that those of Prince George William of Hanover and after are verified by the sources. Based on WP:BURDEN, whoever wants to restore (or keep at this moment) the material has to prove that the consensus is to ignore these doubts of verifiability. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. As I said over and over, I agree to add a footnote saying they are courtesy titles. I do not agree with further removals (beyond those of 2022). DrKay (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Clarified. 06:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike out the untrue statement "Now that DrKay has finally delivered (though not here but at ANI, it would have been better to present it here) what other sources they meant", which is disproven by "There are of course dozens for each, as shown at the talk pages of those articles and simple web searches", and "The content is easily verified by ... the citations on each article." If you think it is incivil to lie or to make up the opinions or actions of other editors, then you should reconsider your own behavior. DrKay (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my previous statement could have been misunderstood. Let me clarify: You did eventually list the sources I asked for.
However, you cannot expect an editor to go through hundreds of sources to find the ones you meant. Up until that point, it wasn't clear to me that you were talking about these sources, and it would have been very helpful if you had enumerated them earlier.
If you disagree with the above categorization, please explain where you disagree. Such footnotes could be an example of category B, so I simply do not understand where you disagree. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to repeat myself. You'll have to wait for other opinions, or follow DR. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Hanoverian_princes&oldid=1228901571"