Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

→

Archive 90

"LGBT ideology-free zones" in Poland

Editors are invited to opine on how to rename or restyle the title so as to make clear that "LGBT ideology" is not a thing. Threads: Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#Title, Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#LGBT-free zone, Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone#What is 'LGBT ideology'? François Robere (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead already makes that clear:

"An 'LGBT ideology-free zone'... refers to some regions of Poland which have declared themselves unwelcoming of an alleged 'LGBT ideology.' "

There is no need to call it something other than what those 100 municipalities call it.

Also, it most certainly is "a thing". See Ideology. Ideologies exist. Some are good, some are bad. Some are based on evidence, some are based on bullshit. I can't think of any group or person who is100% ideology free. Why would you think that the LGBT community is different in this regard than pretty much every other community? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think they are saying that LGBT itself is not an ideology and therefore there can't be an LGBT ideology-free zone, but that argument is based on WP:OR so can't be used. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. is an ideology is not the same as has an ideology. Wikipedia has an ideology but Wikipedia isn't itself an ideology. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

In which case the current title is misleading, as the regulations described in that article are aimed against LGBT people; the "ideology" is just an excuse.Trasz (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is an ideology or not is irrelevant. We should follow the name from the sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, excelt that it's not the "LGBT ideology" they are banning. It's the ideology of accepting that LGBT people are human. Guy (help!) 21:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What is 'LGBT ideology'? User talk:Chrisdevelop) 00:50, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Emir, per policy we should not be using "LGBT ideology" in Wikivoice if the best sources agree that no such ideology exists. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

and/or change Title to 'LGBT ideology-free zones in Poland' (perhaps placing "LGBT ideology" in "so-called" inverted commas) or merge with either LGBT rights in Poland or LGBT history in Poland, or merge all three. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Wikivoice applies to statements of fact, not to titles of things. People use misleading titles for things all of the time. We don't say in the article title that the title they chose is misleading. We can only report in the lead that a notable source called the title misleading. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that "it's not the 'LGBT ideology' they are banning. It's the ideology of accepting that LGBT people are human". Yes, accepting that LGBT people are human is an ideology -- one of the good ones. And I don't think I need to engage in virtue signalling by pointing out that my opinion on not accepting that LGBT people are human is exactly the same low opinion of everyone else here.

Nonetheless, we don't rename things with new names because we don't agree with the name that the people doing the naming chose. We follow WP:COMMONNAME.

• We don't change Pro Life Campaign to So-called "Pro Life" (anti-abortion, actually) campaign.
• We don't call the National Socialism Association the National Socialism (but they are really fascists, not socialists) Association.
• We don't rename Liberation theology into Liberation theology (well, not really -- the truth is that it is Marxist theology).
• We don't rename People's republic into Falsely-called "people's" falsely-called "republic" (not to be confused with any actual republic).

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Since 'LGBT-free zones' are already discussed in LGBT rights in Poland under a dedicated heading LGBT_rights_in_Poland#"LGBT_free_zones" and there is an 'LGBT-free zone' image posted in LGBT history in Poland, this topic does not warrant its own article, which duplicates what is already in the other two. It should be merged with LGBT rights in Poland under the heading that is already there, and the duplicated material edited out. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 02:29, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Why not just change it to LGBT free zone? It is mentioned in the lead section as an alternative way to refer to it, backed-up by several sources. Whereas LGBT ideology-free zone may be the COMMONNAME, LGBT free zone is more concise, probably more recognizable and more natural, and still precise enough. El Millo (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Chrisdevelop, I am going to ask a good-faith question, and I am purposely doing it before looking at the pages you linked to. Please take this is the spirit I wrote it in; I am not trying to pick a fight. Are you proposing a merge because there isn't enough material to justify a stand-alone article (which would be the right reason)? Or are you proposing a merge as a backdoor way of getting rid of an article title based on the fact that pretty much everyone agrees that "LGBT ideology-free zones" is misleading but some of us don't think that we should go against WP:COMMONNAME? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, not a bad idea, if there are significant sources that use that name. Could someone who understands polish do a web search in that language and tell us how many sources use LGBT free zone as opposed to using LGBT ideology-free zone? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon The heading at LGBT_rights_in_Poland#"LGBT_free_zones" places "LGBT free zones" in inverted commas, which takes care of the "so-called" aspect, since there is not currently a defintion of what LGBT ideology actually is, or purports to be, or is believed to be, nor is there an article on it. Splitting the topic of LGBT+ Rights in Poland across three articles creates quite some duplication. If it is not agreed that there should be a merge of all three of these articles into one comprehensive, then the existing article could itself either be renamed to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland', or expanded to include other states that have the equivalent. There are 'LGBT-ideology free' countries, e.g. Russia, whose Duma passed a Russian_gay_propaganda_law prohibiting 'Gay Propaganda', which amounts to the same thing. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 03:18, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

I made a Google search of both names: Strefa wolna od ideologii LGBT (LGBT ideology-free zone) returns 71 results and Strefa wolna od LGBT (LGBT free zone) returns 108 results. El Millo (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we should rename that article "LGBT free zones" immediately and keep discussing whether to merge, and which way. Does anyone object to the move? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename to "LGBT free zones" only if other 'LGBT-free' countries are to be included, such as Russia, which has a Russian_gay_propaganda_law, and Iran whose former president Ahmadinejad declared in Controversies_of_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Columbia_University "in Iran we don't have homosexuals". Otherwise, rename to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland'. Removal of "ideology" is necessary, since no-one knows what 'LGBT ideology' is. "LGBT-free zone" can be conflated in intention with Judenfrei ("Jew-free zone"), since Nazis also exterminated homosexuals. User talk:Chrisdevelop) 04:23, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Rename *For title purposes, the terms used in Polish don't matter at all; per WP:COMMONNAME, titles on enwiki go by the English-language common name. (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, emphasis mine.) That said, glancing at the English-language sources makes it clear "LGBT free zones" is the most common name in English, so obviously it should be renamed. ---Aquillion (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who understands polish do a web search in that language and tell us how many sources use LGBT free zone as opposed to using LGBT ideology-free zone?Sure, the organisers of these zones made it clear they do not oppose LGBT people themselves, but rather the LGBT movement and what they believe to be LGBT ideology(as LGBT people do not equal the LGBT movement). Here are two reliable sources from mainstream news sources which describe what their intent was and what they believe to be "LGBT ideology", while distancing themselves from attempts to discriminate LGBT people themselves.

• 1.[1]

Część samorządowców z Lubelszczyzny wystosowała właśnie apel do organizacji i instytucji unijnych pod hasłem "Uwolnijmy Europę od ideologii". Na konferencji prasowej przekonywali, że ich intencje związane z przyjmowaniem uchwał anty-LGBT zostały źle zrozumiane, bo nigdy nie byli przeciwko ludziom, ale przeciwko ideologii.Na spotkaniu z dziennikarzami udowadniali, że celem tej ideologii jest utopia. - Ta utopia oznacza przede wszystkim dyktaturę mniejszości nad większością. Jeżeli pozycja rodziny, która przynosi wielki dar życia i wychowania kolejnego pokolenia, jest poniżana i kwestionowana, to z całą pewnością jest to świat, którego nie chcielibyśmy oglądać w naszych wioskach i miastach. I to jest to niebezpieczeństwo, przed którym chcielibyśmy chronić - mówił Radosław Brzózka z zarządu powiatu świdnickiego. Ten powiat jako pierwszy w Polsce przyjął uchwałę anty-LGBT. Translation: Part of local politicians from Lubelszczyzna issued an appeal to organisations and European Union institutions under the slogan "Let's free Europe from ideology". During press conference they were explaining that their intention connected to issuing anti-LGBT proclamations were wrongly interpreted, because they never were against people, but against ideology.During the meeting with reporters they attested that the ideology has utopia as its goal-This utopia means first and foremost dictatorship of minority over majority. If position of family, which brings great gift of life and upbringing of new generations is humiliated and questioned, than most certainly this is a model which we wouldn't like to see in our villages and towns. And this is the danger we would like to protect from-said Radoslaw Brzozka from swidnicki district. This district was one of the first district who issued an anti-LGBT proclamation.

• 2.[2]

Andrzej Pruś podkreśla, że stanowisko przyjęte uchwałą w żadnym punkcie nie popierało wykluczania społecznego, dyskryminacji, szykanowania przedstawicieli środowisk LGBT, a jedynie miało na celu wyrażenie sprzeciwu i dezaprobaty wobec prób promocji ideologii opartej na afirmacji LGBT. Translation: Andrzej Prus underlines that the statement in no point at all supported social exclusion, discrimination or persecutions representatives of LGBT groups, andwas only intended to express opposition to attempts to promote ideology based on affirmation of LGBT. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename. I'm okay with inclusion of other countries if the concepts overlap. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A new heading 'Proposal to rename' has been placed in the Talk page Talk:LGBT_ideology-free_zone#Proposal_to_rename_as_'LGBT-free_zones User talk:Chrisdevelop) 17:46, 19 July 2020 (GMT)

Merge discussion

See here. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampradaya

Hello,

There is a discussion going on at the article for Swaminarayan Sampradaya. There seems to be a discussion going but there is an issue that a break off group BAPS has editors that want to use their texts and version of their ideology to dominate the original groups article.

136.2.16.181 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I reviewed the article and its talk page and found what appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND. @136.2.16.181 states there is a problem with a specific group. In reviewing the multiple edits and reverts I saw that many developments in the tradition that occurred following the death of its founder, Swaminarayan, were removed thereby reducing the diversity of thought in the article. The article is definitely not about the founder since there is a separate article covering his life. The article’s content is about the denomination, the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, which includes multiple perspectives that are no longer reflected by the recent edits and move the overall page away from NPOV. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the article states all the facts about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and is not biased towards any of the denominations of the sampradaya and I agree with Skubydoo. The edits made by multiple unregistered users introduced a bias by removing details unrelated to one group. Currently, it has been written for anyone to understand the holistic views of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and its history. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Skubydoo (talk · contribs) and Apollo1203 (talk · contribs). As it stands, the vast majority of materials cited in the article are from independent, secondary sources with primary sources only being used to corroborate details cited in the aforementioned sources. Where relevant, material from all major branches of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is cited. Harshmellow717 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

How come you guys are always agreeing on BAPS related articles? Have you even looked at the sources? They are from Aksharpith and BAPS related articles. I wouldn't be surprised if these users are sock puppets or at minimum members of BAPS. We need some additional users involved. I can assure you that Moksha88 will be here supporting BAPS claims. 136.2.32.181 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Following up: Users Apollo1203 and Moksha88 have a history of trying to dominate users forcing editors into not making any negative or critical appearing edits to BAPS and related articles. My theory was that they are members of the group and are constantly working together to constantly remove items and have been accused in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive and this is partially true. I investigated the Moksha88 history further and I found that Moksha88 is a member or representative of BAPS and they disclose this fact in a earlier edit as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344. This editor has an extremely NPOV view point. The article and edits in question are heavily sources with biased BAPS materials and constantly group attacks editors regarding anything critical to BAPS. How so I report this conflict of interest and how to report this to get him banned from editing more swaminarayan articles? They are already edit warring and undoing edits and see how blatant it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Swaminarayan_Sampradaya Applebutter221 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center

This article could use a good examination and clean up. I just made changes to make it clear that it was not condemned by the United Nations, per se, but by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, and removed a few WP:UNDUE instances WP:NPOV, such as listing the number of deaths there in six years without specifying if that number of unusual for a residential school. Still, the article as a whole seems extremely biased against the school, and in favor of the attempts to close it down.

The Center may well be a terrible institution, I don't know enough about it to tell, but if it is terrible, we need to convey that in as neutral and unbiased a way as possible. The article as it stands seems more like propaganda for the activists attempting to shut it down then a proper Wikipedia article.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Britannia (TV series)

I have tried to make edits on the above page, in order to fairly include 'all points of view' with regards to the creation of this television show. After all, that is one Wikipedia's fundamental principles. At the moment, and I have referenced these, the article does not include the opinions of: a) a number of faculty members at a leading writing university (one of the most respected of its kind in the world), including its head, who have publicly supported the original author: they believe the show is based on an adaptation of his academically submitted work. b) a second respected university faculty (a legal one) who have acknowledged the controversy on their newsletter, which has been published and is available online. c) 1,500 signatories of an online petition, who all believe that the correct author has not been accredited with the show's creation. d) the known opinion of 45,000 YouTube viewers, the majority of which overwhelmingly support the above notion.

The small clique of editors who removed my initial edits, and who I am trying to debate this with amicably, keep avoiding answering my questions and obfuscating. They also keep removing the 'neutrality tags' when another user has tried to flag the matter.

How can an article be fairly weighted, when the above views (including from world-class subject experts and academics) aren't being referred to within it? Furthermore, it surely cannot be right that a small group of editors are actively trying to stop a debate around the articles neutrality, by the wider Wiki community. I've read WP:NPOV and its clear that this is exactly why there needs to be an open and independent discussion about this article. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This same issue has been opened at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Britannia_(TV_series). Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note I am happy to continue the debate in one thread, over on the dispute page, but I request that until I do so, this chain stay open (as the discussion there is centred around two things: the neutrality of the article and the validity of the references I used in it). The neutral point of view policy is not being adhered to. Thanks for reading, SR SethRuebens (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Poland

There's some edit warring going on in Poland in an attempt to keep the following statement:

Poland is the only European country which never criminalized homosexuality

while erasing the statement:

though a hundred municipalities, comprising about a third of the country, have declared themselves "LGBT-free".

You're welcome to participate in the discussion at Talk:Poland#LGBT status in Poland. François Robere (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Francois Robere, at least for appearances’ sake, can you please ping people who you are involved in a dispute with when you post to notice boards? Failure to do so is at best discourteous and might very well look like attempts at WP:GAMEing and forum shopping. Volunteer Marek 05:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inviting people from here to go there, not the other way around... But yeah, okay. I usually do that. By the way, VM, why didn't you ping me? François Robere (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed Quotes at Tell Abyad

We have an issue with 3 quotes at Tell Abyad, where there are three quotes included which as to my account are contrary to Wikipedia:Quotations and neutrality, Wikipedia:Quotations, Wikipedia:Quotations/2, MOS:QUOTE.

• There have been 4 discussions about them, which you can read at the articles talk page.
• Other discussions about them where at the 3RR noticeboard and DNR where as to me no solution was found.

I provide a wikilink here to the section citation of Wikipedia:quoatations/2 where it states "Quotes generally should come from notable sources or entities directly of some relevance to an article. The policy WP:UNDUE applies. If the source of the quote is neither notable nor otherwise important to the article, then there's no reason to be using a quote in the first place. Relevant sources need not be notable - for example, in an article about a murder, a sentence by a neighbor may be well worth quoting directly. Naming of such sources should follow notability and BLP. Quotations should not be represented out of context or in articles where they are not relevant to the overall topic; i.e. an article on the Pentagon doesn't include Washington's warning about standing armies."

The Kurdwatch quote:

"None of KurdWatch’s Arab or Turkmen interview partners reported of ethnically motivated mass expulsions from Tall Abyad and the surrounding areas. In fact, we can assume that there have been no large-scale ethnically motivated expulsions in the region. For demographic reasons alone a »Kurdification« of the area is out of the question. The proportion of around ten percent Kurds is simply too low. At the same time, regulations such as only Kurds from ʿAyn al-ʿArab or Tall Abyad can act as a guarantor for refugees so that they can return to Tall Abyad from Turkey clearly discriminate on the basis of ethnicity."

Regarding the Kurdwatch quote: Kurdwatchs authors are not made known to the public, and its content managers were Eva Savelsberg and Siamend Hajo who are closely linked to the ENKS, and have very few hits on google. So no notability is given here. The were both content managers invited to a SETA forum together with Kyle Orton, an Author who equates the YPG with the PKK. Siamends Hajos membership of the ENKS was suspended for his attendance of the forum.. This quote is sure a POV quote as the ENKS was an opponent of the PYD. Eva Savelsberg, as provided in the Youtube link criticizes the PYD for their press freedom record. During the Syrian Civil War there was never as much press freedom as under the Government of the PYD. But even for the ENKS Siamend Heja crossed the line for attending a SETA forum equating the PYD with the PKK.

The Washington Post Quote penned by Liz Sly:

The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab.

Regarding the Washington Post Quote penned by Liz Sly: The Quote ignores opposing information that shows that the PYD and the Syrian Democratic Forces SDF have called Tell Abyad all the time Tell Abyad and also haven't removed the Welcome to Tell Abyad plate and the entrance to the city. Formally renamed is not really neutral for mentioning that they allowed the Kurdish name to be used as well. Then Latin script was and is common to the Syrian population as it is used throughout Syrians traffic signs. Tell Abyad was also not unilaterally detached from an existing Raqqa Governorate, as the Raqqa Governorate was at the time (2015) called Raqqa Wilaya and mainly controlled by the Islamic State. Therefore I see the Quote as POV.

The quote from The Washington Institute penned by Fabrice Balanche:

In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border.

Regarding the quote from The Washington Institute penned by Fabrice Balanche: Besides the fact that Balanche ignores the Civil council consisting of an Arab Majority also mentioned in the Washington Post article (behind a paywall) penned by Liz Sly, and the Tell Abyad canton mentioned in numerous sources, it has also no direct relevance to the article. Balanche has no widely known connection specifically to Tell Abyad, nor has the Washington Institute. Therefore I see the Quote as POV and lacks of Notability for the article.

I support the removal of the Quotes as I did here. I was reported at the 3RR noticeboard for removing a KurdWatch quote, and had to revert and include all the three quotes again, so I come with my arguments to here and hope for dispute resolution.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I already explained here about your edit war.[[3]] You want delete reliable sourced content with WP:ORIGINAL local "source" How is this POV? This person keeping seeking new excuses to delete large encyclopedic material from wikipedia. He wants this one POV version [[4]] Shadow4dark (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

References

All discussions, we had first 5 people involved but dropped now to 3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Konli17_Block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_191#Tell_Abyad And the talk page Shadow4dark (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

essays are not policies that we are required to obey.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, MOS:Quote is not an essay, but within the Manual of Style guideline and links to WP:Quotations right below the title. But true, WP:Quoatations is mentioned as an essay so are the other two which I mentioned. Within MOS:QUOTE there is also MOS:QUOTEPOV which would also be interesting to read regarding the quotes. Then also, for what are essays written and included on Wikipedia? For that someone can read it and enhance the information available at Wikipedia? I guess this is at least one of the the reasons. We either follow them or refute them, but that's everyones own choice. I chose to read them.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not really sure whether this discussion is needed, given all the previous discussions we had over this across WP. Just to give some background here, after failing on the Talk page and aggressive reverts, user Paradise Chronicle had opened a DRN case about one of the quotes, but did not like the suggestion of volunteer user Nightenbelle. We have beaten this discussion to death on the Talk page of this article and I have refuted all the points mentioned by Paradise chronicle, who was blocked (with another edit-warrior) over their edit-warring behavior in this article, but still they want to keep discussing for ever. Here is a very brief summary of my response (see DRN for more references and details):

1. Kurdwatch is a human rights organization with no political affiliation, unlike the Kurdish sources Paradise C prefers to use (ANF, Hawar, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, you name it..). Their coverage was fair and balanced, including covering YPG human rights violations, hence YPG supporters don't like them.
2. Balanche, a professor of history and fellow with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is an established expert in the Syrian civil war and author of the reference work Sectarianism of Syria's civil war, and possibly the most informed person about the ethnic/sectarian details of the civil war. He is quoted across WP and elsewhere. He [here accurately and meticulously described the Arab population of Tel Abyad and the Kurdish population around it], and the Arab tribes geographical distribution and relations with the government, opposition, YPG, so I guess you can hardly say "Balanche has no widely known connection specifically to Tell Abyad, nor has the Washington Institute."
3. Washington Post reporter Liz Sly was based in Akcakale (the Turkish part of Tel Abyad, separated by a fence), interviewing refugees from Tel Abyad. So, your claim she is not relevant is so funny.
4. The fact that the Balanche and WaPo quotes share so many points make them even more credible and more relevant for this article. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned before, there has not been any real Sysop action in the discussions. Sysops only blocked for edit war and I wish not to go into it for now. But from Sysops, so far no arguments about the content and significance of the quotes came. About the political affiliation: Kurdwatch had as a content manager Siamend Hajo, who is a leader of the Kurdistan Future Party, as it was presented several times by Anadolu here and here and by Seta here, both are outlets rather critical to the PYD party, a pro-Kurdish party, the only political party which enabled Kurdish in school. The Future party of is also part of the Kurdish National Council, better known as the ENKS, who is also critical to the PYD. About the relevance:Fabrice Balanche is no expert in the Syrian Civil War, as he ignores several significant facts which I have mentioned above. He has also no clear connection to Tel Abyad, he hasn't lived at the town for a relevant time. Also the Washington Institute can not provide a "unique" connection to Tell Abyad. Then the quote from the Washington Post of Liz Sly is also not uniquely connected with Tell Abyad and has significant contradictions to the Fabrice Balance quote and also to the facts. Just read it, please and also the sources we have provided. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As part of the RFC can i tag some neutral people with high knowledge of the syrian civil war, User:EkoGraf and User:Mr.User200. This dispute gets annoying Shadow4dark (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Has Liz Sly ever been to Syria, or is all her information from interviewing the jihadist supporters that Turkey shelters? Balanche has great maps and some of his information is revelatory, but his analysis can sometimes be spotty. The issue here isn't the references or the information in them; the issue is that these quotes, which are contradicted by other sources, are being framed as the only acceptable references, and the information contained in them is being distorted to push a POV. Konli17 (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

1 of the 3 quotes is deleted as per talk page agreement Shadow4dark (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Not so much an agreement as a bullshit pretence at a quid pro quo, agreed between POV-pushers. The issue isn't the sources, but their presentation. Konli17 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Note, this user above was banned and has dispute with several editors. [[5]][[6]] [[7]] Shadow4dark (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

a comment to the "note" by Shadow4dark: The editor is relevant to the discussion as he was blocked for the dispute about Tell Abyad. He was blocked for allegedly having reverted 9 times. Actually both reverted 8 times, and Ibn Amr (the reporting party at the 3RR noticeboard) was the reverting party in the first place. And while Konli17 was active at the talk page, opening a discussion on the dispute, Ibn Amr literally wrote I don't care what you think. I too was partially blocked for a little time for removing the very Kurdwatch quote that was now removed. Also after having been reported by Ibn Amr at the 3RR noticeboard.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC for Disputed Quotes at Tell Abyad

How should Wikipedia include quotes in the Tell Abyad article? Please see the arguments above. Thank you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Urban Decay Page Bias

A section of the article on Urban decay violates the neutral point of view rule.

The initial section states at one point that "[Urban decay] is mostly due to poor black people and their lifestyle choices. Low income neighborhoods that were previously occupied by predominantly poor white immigrants never had these issues."

Not only does this not include a citation to attempt to support the notion that it is "mostly due to poor black people" or that "low income neighborhoods that were previously occupied by predominantly poor white immigrants never had these issues" but the phrasing places blame on "poor black people and their lifestyle choices" (said "choices" left undefined as there is no support nor citation), rather than highlighting how systemic racism can play into poverty and lead to urban decay, rather than focusing on what may lead to the necessity of certain "choices" such as stealing to eat or selling drugs for money (issues prevalent due to hunger and poverty as a whole, not experienced by just one race or group of people with said choices not the fault of the people themselves but the issues driving them to engage in it).

The article references more than once the existence of urban decay outside the United States and while "many tenants [of public housing developments are often of] North African origin," the housing development population also generally includes "recent immigrants" not of any particular race with "city centers [tending to be] occupied mainly by upper-class residents" shifting to a focus to wealth vs poverty with the intersectionality of race, without blame for urban decay placed on the people themselves.

The section on urban decay in South Africa mentions that "low-income workers and unemployed people, including many refugees and illegal immigrants from neighboring countries" replaced many of the "middle-class white residents" who had moved elsewhere, causing businesses to "[follow] their customers to the suburbs." Again, urban decay is not arising due to the race of the people involved or their choices somehow predestined by race but, to give one example, the wealth gap between these "middle-class white residents" and the "low-income... unemployed... refugees and illegal immigrants."

It is even mentioned later that "from the 1930s until 1977, African-Americans seeking borrowed capital for housing and businesses were discriminated against via the federal-government–legislated discriminatory lending practices for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)," referencing outright that the inability of black people to obtain better housing or improve business, thus improving wealth and with it living conditions, food stability, and so on, was due to discrimination, not the features of their race or their "lifestyle choices."

There is a connection between poverty level and race but it not only should place the blame on a system that allows this discrepancy, this favoritism of "middle-class white residents" over the rest (mentioned later , not the race and choices of the people themselves, but it also focuses on wealth and lack thereof with an additional focus on racial intersectionality- not a complete overlap of the two; for the blame of urban decay to be placed on "black people and their lifestyle choices" is not only ignorant of the systems that place black people in squalid, unfavorable conditions, forcing them to possibly make certain "lifestyle choices" out of necessity but ignorant of the "other:" these "low-income workers... unemployed people," and so on that are affected by urban decay due to classism, lack of educational and other opportunities, etc. without the overlap of race.

Allocating blame to black people rather than attributes of a system favoring the white and wealthy, stating factually that all people of said group make the same "lifestyle choices" rather than discussing factual causes of urban decay such as wealth distribution, lack of resources, lack of opportunities, systemic racism while includes issues with the above but with a focus on the black community, not erasure of non-black people experiencing said issues, is biased and guides the reader towards blaming people, their choices, their existences, their race- rather than a system within societal structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teathau (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no such article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean Urban decay?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note since posing the above the correct page has been linked to now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an actual neutrality problem. The sentence is completely unsourced and should have been removed in the first place. Dimadick (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Crime in NYC reduced due to "broken windows" policing?

There's an editor on New York City Police Department who is edit-warring text into the lead[8] which says:

• "The crime rate in New York City has been declining over the last few decades which some analysts attribute to the NYPD's "broken windows" policing strategy introduced in the early 1990s."

However, the academic literature on broken windows policing is divided. Is it therefore not a NPOV violation to shoehorn one side of that debate into the lead while omitting the other side? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

IN the lede, yes its A POV violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not the sort of information that should be in the lead. Springee (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a POV violation which conveniently ignores that crime across the U.S. has been on the decline in recent decades. (Not to mention that it is also a violation of MOS:LEAD because none of the added content appears in the body of the article.) Calidum 15:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And ignores the dramatic decrease in unemployment. O3000 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Probably should not be in the lead... but should be in the article. In addition, we should avoid the weasel wording... rather than an anonymous “some analysts”, we should attribute the opinion and specify WHICH analysts. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is POV, a controversial statement, arguably not the dominant view, and certainly not lead-worthy. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I'd like to point out that I am trying to rework this para in good faith after an RFC found the original version was overly biased toward the negative. User:Snooganssnoogans (who wrote the original paragraph and started this NPOV Noticeboard discussion) has so far reverted/contested every attempt to include positive aspects of the NYPD to balance the lede since the RFC. The "broken windows" reference was added by me after he reverted the introduction of declining crime rates on the basis that they "have nothing to do with the NYPD per se"[9], and was an attempt to appease his concerns of relevance. I agree that it doesn't need to be there, as the connection between falling crime and public perception of the police stands on its own. Tobus (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, as Steven says, in the lede, for sure. A "some attribute" without the "and at least as many absolutely do not" is an NPOV failure. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that's it's a problem in the lede. It would be a good idea to get the RfC formally closed trying to resolve this. It's unclear what this is summarizing from the article body into the lede. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:28, 4 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^ChatMe!_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^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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^ChatMe!_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%.[27] By 2009, 94.2% of DSA members were using MLM, accounting for 99.6% of sellers, and 97.1% of sales.[28]”StanTwoCents (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"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 Wikipedia 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

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^ChatMe!_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 Wikipedia 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^ChatMe!_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^ChatMe!_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^ChatMe!_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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia does ignorance-based amorality/neutrality end, and knowledge-based morality begin? Obviously, readers of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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

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 [[10]], 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^ChatMe!_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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^ChatMe!_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^ChatMe!_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 Wikipedia. (See WP:OR and WP:AXE). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_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 Wikipedia 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^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 8 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)

Kamala Harris

• The Wikipedia 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)

Of archdukes and princes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

First, as a technical note: Although the RfC proposals are in subsections, the entire section is clearly one continuous discussion and to treat the proposals separately from the rest of the discussion would be divorcing them from context. This close is an attempt, therefore, to summarize possible consensus for that one continuous discussion.

Secondly, this is one of those discussions where WP:Not counting heads is particularly germane. This is certainly not a simple matter of counting noses but neither is it a matter of picking who had the "better" arguments after eliminating the irrelevant ones. Many of those that !voted "Support" qualified that sentiment, occasionally in ways that made it clear the proposed text was problematic. Many of those that !voted "Oppose" indicated that some level of restraint was desirable. Some of those that !voted for proposal #1 never returned to weight in on whether the revised proposal #2 was acceptable or preferable.

Thirdly, the tension between two sets of important rules was evident multiple times in the discussion. On one hand, WP:RS is an important content guideline and WP:COMMONNAME is part of the Article Title policy. On the other, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR are the three Core Content Policies. There were a number of different arguments that referenced some portion of these rules in some form. We do have a limited hierarchy of types of rules: Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. If WP:COMMONNAME conflicts with the WP:CCPOL, then CCPOL will generally take precedence but this is not carved in stone.

All that said, there is a discernible consensus in these discussions. We do not require unanimous agreement to find consensus and everybody does not need say to same thing to express consensus. Equally, since neither proposal attempts to create a new policy, the exact text of the two proposals is less important than the discussion around those proposals. The participants in this discussion have reached a rough consensus that titles in pretense should not be generally used in article titles, infoboxes, etc. unless its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources demonstrates that a specific person is commonly named as such. The "significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" language does not explicitly appear in comments below but when an editor refers to a policy or guideline by an alias such as WP:COMMONNAME without qualification, as a significant proportion of editors below and proposal #2 did, then it is understood they are incorporating by reference all the terms of that rule as currently written. This consensus does not so much create a new interpretation as it restates existing policy and therefore does not risk WP:CONLIMITED issues or violate the Arbcom interpretation of levels of consensus. As always, the exact limits of when such an exception applies, what constitutes a significant majority, which sources are independent and/or reliable, and how that applies to any particular subject can only be determined by the normal editing cycle. The onus to demonstrate such sources is normally on those wishing to include disputed content.

I will state proactively that the above is not a WP:SUPERVOTE but a synthesis of the lively discussion in accordance with the consensus interpretation guidelines which apply to non-administrator closures of discussions. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 [11] 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:

• Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:I just don't like it and goes against every policy Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia presents a claim as "according to this old rule set / according to this branch of royalists", it's fine. When Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:I just don't like it to a particular issue so it attempts to override the existing Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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^(talk) 23:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, there are a seemingly endless amount of English-language sources (here are some recent ones [12], [13], [14]) 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Not convinced WP:COMMONNAME solves this currently; using a title in a Wikipedia 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 “Wikipedia’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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 templates 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 Wikipedia 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 Category:American physicians. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia to treat identically pre-abolition titles and the titles as they are used now.” Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

The discussion above 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.

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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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." [15]. 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 [16] 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 11:49, 15 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)

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)

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 [N.B., that the following is explicitly not Nicetas's own testimony] 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 [N.B., this is often worded in other mass-market sources as "prostitute" or occasionally even "Western prostitute"], 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 [N.B., non-historian sources frequently, and mistakenly, refer to a "throne"] 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.

Major denominational families in Christianity:

Western Christianity

Eastern Christianity

Protestantism

Anabaptism

Anglicanism

Lutheranism

Reformed

(Latin Church)

Catholic Church

(Eastern Catholic Churches)

Eastern Orthodox Church

Oriental Orthodox Churches

Church of the East

Schism (1552)

Assyrian Church of the East

Ancient Church of the East

Protestant Reformation

(16th century)

Great Schism

(11th century)

Council of Ephesus (431)

Council of Chalcedon (451)

Early Christianity

Great Church

(Full communion)

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

So the solution for Wikipedia 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)