Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity
M.Sjostrom
I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
and encountered the following situation:
In the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I
there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
to Charlemagne, in the said article's chapter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I#The_Merovingian_descent_through_Charlemagne
The lineage is based on idea that king Theudebald of
the Franks had son Grimwald of Aquitaine, whose
daughter were Itta, mother of Begga, through whose son
Pippin of Herstal the Carolingian main line descends.
Some editor had, fairly properly IMO, added there a
note "critical medieval genealogists regard this
genealogical link historically unattested and
practically untrustworthy".
Motivation seemingly was: "The Merovingian descent
through Charlemagne - there exist no proven lineage
from Merovingians to Carolingians, only proposed
hypotheses"
Not too long afterwards, a notorious editor, whose
name is known to be Charles von Hamm (possibly some
have encountered that person in some royalty
discussion fora) edited the mentioned cautionary note
totally away.
I am puzzled how any responsible person would oppose
the cautionary note. IIRC, everyone who knows at least
something about royal genealogies, knows that no
lineage from Merovingians towards the present day is
proven, not even close.
Seemingly it is important to some individuals to keep
ongoing a belief (delusion) in such hypothetized
lineages.
This sort of recurring maintenance of an unproven
descent is a setback to medieval genealogy.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
pj.evans
with the least knowledge have the most authority, unfortunately. (This
has come up in other fields. Wikipedia generally can't recognize that
administrative and editorial functions should not be combined in the
same people, and that number of edits is not a good measure of
knowledge.)
On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
> and encountered the following situation:
>
> In the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I
> there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
> to Charlemagne, in the said article's chapterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I#T...
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
Nathaniel Taylor
<42dd709f-2efa-4bdb...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
"pj.evans" <pj.eva...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
> > and encountered the following situation:
> >
> > In the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent of Elizabeth II from
> > William I
> > there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
> > to Charlemagne, in the said article's
> > chapterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent of Elizabeth II from William
> Wikipedia's rules are arcane, and generally function so that those
> with the least knowledge have the most authority, unfortunately. (This
> has come up in other fields. Wikipedia generally can't recognize that
> administrative and editorial functions should not be combined in the
> same people, and that number of edits is not a good measure of
> knowledge.)
I'm sure Wikipedia will now be cited as support for the viability of the
"Order of the Merovingian Dynasty," discussed here a month or so ago.
One telling Wikipedia case I've seen recently is the Wikipedia article
devoted to the pretender to the title 'King of Man', David Howe (on this
claim, see rec.heraldry, and Michael Andrews-Reading's website --
). Howe or his supporters have spent countless hours defending, through
aggressive Wikipedia editing, his patently absurd claim (the issues are
more legal than genealogical: Howe last year learned what an 'heir
general' was, and that he was not one).
Wikipedia's governing dictum of 'neutrality' means, in practice, equal
time for opposing views, even if one view is self-evidently rational and
the other is simply a vigorously-defended fringe theory.
This flaw concerns not just medieval genealogy: I expect that Wikipedia
has become the clearinghouse of choice for fringe theories in every
discipline.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Dora Smith
brighter and far less ridiculous than the people on the newsgroup. I just
don't want to go over to the newsreader to answer this.
My answer is, there are certainly enough people here who would know!
I actually know what to do if you disagree with something in Wikipedia and
claim expertise, but I'm keeping mum. People would begin to mistake
Wikipedia for NewsWhatever.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tigge...@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 3:30 PM
Subject: Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity
>
> I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
> and encountered the following situation:
>
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007 9:15 AM
mj...@btinternet.com
> In article
> <42dd709f-2efa-4bdb-83a0-0b98e8e38...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
> > > and encountered the following situation:
>
> > > William I
> > > there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
> > > to Charlemagne, in the said article's
Actually, it's worse than that. The administrator handling Howe's
page, who allows Howe to cite his own webpage but will not permit any
other webpages to be cited, has now blacklisted my site as 'spam'.
Accordingly editors may cite it on Wikipedia to rebut Howe's claims.
The basis for this ruling is that, by examining Howe's claims and
finding them to be false, I am biased against Howe, thus offending
Wikipedia's doctrine of impartiality.
The administrator also cited Wikipedia's doctrine of solidarity - ie
an obligation to stick up for a poster who is criticised.
We used to call this "shooting the messenger".
It is interesting to see that some of the editors have defended the
site, but have been criticised for doing so by the administrator on
the basis of their 'anonymity' (ie he thinks they are me); funnily
enough, the administrator himself is anonymous.
I've never posted to Wikipedia in my life, and this farce certainly
won't encourage me or anyone else with expertise to join the project.
It is hardly surprising that Wikipedia suffers from a lack of
credibility!
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> On Jan 6, 10:49 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <42dd709f-2efa-4bdb-83a0-0b98e8e38...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > I happened to drop to check what happens in Wikipedia,
> > > > and encountered the following situation:
>
> > > > William I
> > > > there appears a genealogical lineage from Merovingians
> > > > to Charlemagne, in the said article's
Recte: "may *not* cite it..."
And one of the editors who suggeted this decision was unreasonable is
now also being investigated by the administrators concerned in
relation to any other 'spam' sites he may have tried to enveigle into
Wikipedia. So much for "good faith"!
WJho...@aol.com
However that person's self-published statements are not normally allowable
in related articles, say about the Isle of Man for instance.
Statements contradicting those self-published claims, need to be from
published sources. In general webpages of other commentators are not citable
unless that commentator is some kind of acknowledged expert in that field. If
however, you've published your article in a book, newspaper, journal, etc. then
there would be no such restriction to citing your article.
Will Johnson
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
mj...@btinternet.com
> Self-published statements are allowed in an article about that same person.
>
> published sources.
The inappropriateness of such a policy is demonstrated amply in the
current case.
Let's say I set up a website [self-published] and claim to be the
rightful Emperor of America, because I am descended from George
Washington.
I then set up a wikipedia site, using an anonymous account, and
reference it to my website. In my wikipedia article, I say I have
staked my claim to be Emperor of America as a descendant of George
Washington.
Someone then investigates and discovers the details of my claim are
untrue. Only, in order to rebut it, he cannot put the rebuttal on a
website and cite it, because that's self-publication and it's not
allowed. Instead, the research must be published elsewhere by an
independent publisher (because if he publishes it himself it's still
self publication.) Only then it can be added to the wikipedia
article.
But, of course, all I need to do in order to rebut this rebuttal is to
add a page to my website saying it's wrong. I don't even need to give
any sensible reasons. I can then quite validly re-edit the wikipedia
article, stating I have refuted that research, and cite... my webpage.
That, surely, has to be a nonsense.
The present case is worse than this, though, because the claimant
himself seems to be editing and re-editing the article regularly,
using an anonymous account. Indeed, he has admitted elsewhere to
having done this in respect of other fantasy claims he has made - he's
actually complained about what a drain on his time it can be!
But if anyone suggests this, they get into trouble from the
administrators for breaching wikipedia's doctrine of good faith: you
have to assume that other contributors are nice people.
Furthermore, those who have criticised this have themselves been
accused by the administrators of being biased and seeking to use
wikipedia to further their own agendas. The fact that they are
anonymous is being used as a sign of bad faith [NB the doctrine of
good faith ceased to apply to them as soon as they showed signs of
dissent]. It doesn't even matter that the administrators themselves
use anonymous accounts.
Worse still, the claimant is allowed to make any claim he wants: eg I
am granting Manx titles as history permits me. Someone else added a
note that there was no evidence that Manx titles had ever been granted
historically - and the administrator removed this because it was an
unproven statement; when questioned, the administrator replied that it
was necessary to prove the negative before the original claim could be
commented on. Does this remind anyone of some of the least scholarly
contributors here?
So, we have a claimant with a history of abusing wikipedia being
allowed to set up and edit his own article, making up his sources as
he goes, and we have those who attempt to deal with this accused of
bad faith and bias, and subject to bans. When they show dissent to
the adminstrators, the administrators rule that they are showing bias
while fooling themselves that they are being neutral, and when they
suggest the same of the administrators, they are told that the
administrators' apparent bias is just resented neutrality. And the
administrators back each other up, citing the doctrine of solidarity.
Meanwhile, the claimant continues to pollute an ostensible reference
source, and the internet, with baseless, self-serving garbage.
It is hard to decide whether it is more like Catch 22 or 1984!
MA-R
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:10:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
Let's say I set up a website [self-published] and claim to be the
rightful Emperor of America, because I am descended from George
Washington.>>
----------------------------
That's a bit of mischaracterization. People *have* tried exactly what you
propose and they are shot down. Articles are routinely removed if found to be
about people of no real wide-spread interest.
In order to have a Wikipedia article, it is not enough to launch outrageous
claims :)
*You* as an individual must yourself be cited *by* several independent
publications in a non-trivial way. So at that point you become a person of
interest to the mass market.
It is only *after* that point, that what you yourself say about yourself
becomes of any interest on Wikipedia.
So if you, MAR, were featured in a few news stories in some daily rag I mean
newspaper, then it's quite possible that some enterprising Wikipedian would
find you of enough interest to try to write a mini-biography. Now if some
other Wikipedian finds that you've actually published several statements about
yourself, your beliefs, etc. they could add those quotes, citing you, with a
proviso like "he claims", "he states", etc and be entirely without the
policy.
WJho...@aol.com
But, of course, all I need to do in order to rebut this rebuttal is to
add a page to my website saying it's wrong. I don't even need to give
any sensible reasons. I can then quite validly re-edit the wikipedia
article, stating I have refuted that research, and cite... my webpage.>>
-------------------------------
Also, in general editing of your own article is frowned upon by Wikipedians.
There have been several long drawn-out cat fights around this issue. For
the most part, one self-serving editor is quickly dispatched by a cadre of
self-righteous ones :)
In fact the article on the Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is a case in point
and has led to massive rewrites of policy to handle just this sort of
self-editing.
Now if some *other* editor, cites your webpage, about yourself, on your own
Wiki-article, they should then properly says "he says X", not "X is wrong".
The goal is to write like journalists, not theologians.
WJho...@aol.com
WJho...@aol.com writes:
proviso like "he claims", "he states", etc and be entirely without the
policy.>>>
-----------------
Good way to neuter myself...
Of course I meant "entirely WITHIN the policy" not without...
Dora Smith
(Couldn't resist.)
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tigge...@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity
> Self-published statements are allowed in an article about that same
> person.
> However that person's self-published statements are not normally
> allowable
> in related articles, say about the Isle of Man for instance.
>
> Statements contradicting those self-published claims, need to be from
> published sources. In general webpages of other commentators are not
> citable
> unless that commentator is some kind of acknowledged expert in that
> field. If
> however, you've published your article in a book, newspaper, journal,
> etc. then
> there would be no such restriction to citing your article.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
mj...@btinternet.com
> In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:10:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>
> mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> Let's say I set up a website [self-published] and claim to be the
> rightful Emperor of America, because I am descended from George
> Washington.>>
>
> ----------------------------
> That's a bit of mischaracterization. People *have* tried exactly what you
> propose and they are shot down. Articles are routinely removed if found to be
> about people of no real wide-spread interest.
Thanks, Will; I am perfectly aware of the logic of the situation. But
it doesn't always go the way it should. Sometimes they succeed.
> In order to have a Wikipedia article, it is not enough to launch outrageous
> claims :)
>
> *You* as an individual must yourself be cited *by* several independent
> publications in a non-trivial way. So at that point you become a person of
> interest to the mass market.
On the contrary, launching outrageous claims is enough. Get one or
two media outlets to make a passing reference to them, or some
gullible home-town reported to write a puff piece on a slow news day,
and you're home and hosed.
> It is only *after* that point, that what you yourself say about yourself
> becomes of any interest on Wikipedia.
>
> So if you, MAR, were featured in a few news stories in some daily rag I mean
> newspaper, then it's quite possible that some enterprising Wikipedian would
> find you of enough interest to try to write a mini-biography.
It's worse than that: you can write your own page. No need to wait
for someone else. Doing a self-write fits in nicely with a self-
promotion campaign, don't you know.
> Now if some
> other Wikipedian finds that you've actually published several statements about
> yourself, your beliefs, etc. they could add those quotes, citing you, with a
> proviso like "he claims", "he states", etc and be entirely without the
> policy.
Or you could simply do it all yourself, using an anonymous handle, and
be entirely within policy. And if anyone tries to combat it, allege
bias and anonymous attacks and lack of good faith and lack of sources
and the solidarity doctrine, and hope you're lucky enough to find an
administrator to back you up and ban those trying to undo your work.
That's how it's going at present. When I first became aware of it, I
thought commonsense would prevail, but I am left bemused at the
discovery that that's not how wikipedia works.
MA-R
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:50:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
<<On the contrary, launching outrageous claims is enough. Get one or
two media outlets to make a passing reference to them, or some
gullible home-town reported to write a puff piece on a slow news day,
and you're home and hosed.>>
Not quite. The references have to be non-trivial, and multiple. If you
have an example of a Wikipedia biography about a person who has not had
non-trivial or multiple citations let me know and I'll tag it for removal.
<<It's worse than that: you can write your own page. No need to wait
for someone else. Doing a self-write fits in nicely with a self-
promotion campaign, don't you know.>>
This is also not true. Many pages of what we Wikipedians call *SELF* have
been removed, for the very reason that the person who wrote the page, is the
subject themselves. Regardless of whether they are notable or not. There was
a quite interesting case about a micro-nation that had a fierce battle over
it for this very reason. I'm currently engaged in a case that has gone
through mediation to arbitration right now over a person who is constantly trying
to re-write portions of their own article.
<<Or you could simply do it all yourself, using an anonymous handle, and
be entirely within policy. And if anyone tries to combat it, allege
bias and anonymous attacks and lack of good faith and lack of sources
and the solidarity doctrine, and hope you're lucky enough to find an
administrator to back you up and ban those trying to undo your work>>
Yes there have been cases of sock-puppets trying to write self-promotional
articles. Typically they are found out, esp. on those articles that anyone is
truly that interested in. Self-sock-puppets however tend to keep popping
up. So it's a constant battle. It helps that there are thousand of
Wikipedians to patrol that sort of thing.
WJho...@aol.com
which you object, let me know. I'm not adverse to battling it out on Wikipedia.
I don't think the argument of citing your article however will win, but
perhaps citing the underlying sources would be persuasive at an atomic level, not
however in conclusion since that would be "the creation of new unpublished
facts", which isn't allowed.
mj...@btinternet.com
> In a message dated 1/5/2008 11:50:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> <<On the contrary, launching outrageous claims is enough. Get one or
> two media outlets to make a passing reference to them, or some
> gullible home-town reported to write a puff piece on a slow news day,
> and you're home and hosed.>>
>
> Not quite. The references have to be non-trivial, and multiple. If you
> have an example of a Wikipedia biography about a person who has not had
> non-trivial or multiple citations let me know and I'll tag it for removal.
Interpretations of "non-trivial" citations will vary, I suppose.
> <<It's worse than that: you can write your own page. No need to wait
> for someone else. Doing a self-write fits in nicely with a self-
> promotion campaign, don't you know.>>
>
> This is also not true. Many pages of what we Wikipedians call *SELF* have
> been removed, for the very reason that the person who wrote the page, is the
> subject themselves. Regardless of whether they are notable or not. There was
> a quite interesting case about a micro-nation that had a fierce battle over
> it for this very reason. I'm currently engaged in a case that has gone
> through mediation to arbitration right now over a person who is constantly trying
> to re-write portions of their own article.
Perhaps the same thing should happen with this article. The
individual concerned was also active in a micronation case, and he
wrote the following in relation to that:
"I've taken it upon myself to start a Wikipeida [sic] page for
Vikesland".
"I am easily identified as a new user with one agenda... and taken
less seriously by the Wikipedia community, according to Wikipedia
guidelines... I've personally been spending a lot of time dealing with
edits there over the last week".
> <<Or you could simply do it all yourself, using an anonymous handle, and
> be entirely within policy. And if anyone tries to combat it, allege
> bias and anonymous attacks and lack of good faith and lack of sources
> and the solidarity doctrine, and hope you're lucky enough to find an
> administrator to back you up and ban those trying to undo your work>>
>
> Yes there have been cases of sock-puppets trying to write self-promotional
> articles. Typically they are found out, esp. on those articles that anyone is
> truly that interested in. Self-sock-puppets however tend to keep popping
> up. So it's a constant battle. It helps that there are thousands of
> Wikipedians to patrol that sort of thing.
All it takes is one administrator to decide the other Wikipedians are
the problem, and the solitary sock-puppet is on top.
The article in question is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Howe_%28claimant_to_King_of_Mann%29
And the talk may be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Howe_%28claimant_to_King_of_Mann%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hu12
and here (under "unrealroyal.com"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist
I actually *agree* that under the policy, my site should not be used
as a citation or reference. And there are plenty of references,
including those on my site, to rebut the ridiculous claims being
promoted.
What I don't agree with is the way the administrator has consistently
assisted and defended the editor whose entire Wikipedia existence
seems devoted to inserting the claimant's material onto the site.
This editor posts as 'Lazydown', and probably originally called
himself 'Theisles'. Calls for admin to check whether these are
sockpuppets have been ignored - the administrators are only concerned
whether the various other editors are sockpuppets (for me!). It would
also be interesting to see who set the article up last month.
The claimant has talked about launching an "aggressive internet
marketing campaign" and has form for using Wikipedia as a tool for
exactly this. He also has form for posting on google groups using
aliases - to the extent that he had 'conversations' with himself.
That should be enough to cause concern.
My own view is that the whole article should be deleted, as happened
last time, but I am not going to try to get directly involved. I am
sympathetic to Wikipedia but have always considered that it would be a
failure in practice, and I have no interest in learning how to become
an editor myself. It is a distraction as far as I am concerned. But
don't be influenced by my views, Will - read it for yourself and make
up your own mind.
MA-R
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/6/2008 1:05:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
My own view is that the whole article should be deleted, as happened
last time, but I am not going to try to get directly involved.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
The person is notable. I wouldn't think a call for deletion would garner
the necessary support.
A person who has been mentioned non-trivially by multiple separate news
sources is notable in my view.
WJho...@aol.com
be faced with a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. There have been attempts
in the past to try to figure out a way to *assist* in helping people
navigate the bizarre pathways of Wikipedia, but none have been terribly successful.
At any rate, I've left a few comments in appropriate places, so we'll see if
anything comes of it. Meanwhile, if there is anything on his personal
biography that you think is poorly sourced or non-neutral, let me know.
Thanks
Will
letiTi...@gmail.com
> Some new Wikipedians who launch immediately into confrontational issues, can
> be faced with a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. There have been attempts
> in the past to try to figure out a way to *assist* in helping people
> navigate the bizarre pathways of Wikipedia, but none have been terribly successful.
>
> At any rate, I've left a few comments in appropriate places, so we'll see if
> anything comes of it. Meanwhile, if there is anything on his personal
> biography that you think is poorly sourced or non-neutral, let me know.
>
Hmmm...
who are you? the head of wikis everywhere?
Wikipedia articles are quick, searchable street maps
nobody who is anybody claims them <G>
lux
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
M.Sjostrom
Will Johnson uttered: "...Articles are routinely
removed if found to be about people of no real
person interest to the mass market."
It is relatively clear that David Howe's notability,
and inclusion in Wikipedia, is based on notoriety.
Notoriety is a good reason of publishing some sort of
biography. If he really is of some interest to "mass
market".
He and his friends editing other, related articles,
may however get them at least for some time, to be
somewhat biased, and/or twisted. Along the lines of
his published (and for several parts, unwarranted)
arguments in support of his claim.
It would be a pity if plenty of people receive their
introduction to the historical concept of "King of
Man" as a flawed or twisted representation of facts
and history by courtesy of the Howe claim.
Hopefully no one gets to put that "princess Jane" to
any related article anywhere. Since I have my doubts
whether the entire honorific "princess" was in use in
Middle Ages, in Britain and in plenty of other places.
I think the royal family of England itself did not
have children called princes and princesses at that
time.
____________________________________________________________________________________
M.Sjostrom
Now I observe that the genealogically ambitious
royalty-watcher Mr Charles von Hamm, whose pretension
to Merovingian descent seemingly is important to him,
has -for now- lost his favorite, although delusional,
part of own pedigree, at least from the Wikipedia
article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I
However, Wikipedia being what it is, it is relatively
expectable that he or someone goes to reintroduce that
Merovingian-Carolingian lineage hypothesis to the
article at some point - make-believe it were a true
and proven genealogy. To impress gullible people, I
presume. And is the membership of that Merovingian
Society for the Gullible that important thing :)
probably it is - to some.
This is why I express my caution with words "for now".
The rational editor who -for now- has excised that
genealogical fiction from the article, also left an
opinion about facts of the matter, to the commentary
page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_I#Merovingian_Descent
I have understood that Wikipedia protocol demands that
before the fantastic lineage between Merovingians and
Carolingians gets again included to the article, the
matter should be argued (and some consensus found) in
that commentary platform.
It would be interesting to check from time to time,
what alterations get to argued, made and even executed
in those two pages.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Jwc...@aol.com
I believe the title Prince / Princess as a child
of the royal family begun it`s usage in England under King Edward III as did
the title of Duke.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Nathaniel Taylor
<aae3be94-8dcf-49c2...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> What I don't agree with is the way the administrator has consistently
> assisted and defended the editor whose entire Wikipedia existence
> seems devoted to inserting the claimant's material onto the site.
> This editor posts as 'Lazydown', and probably originally called
> himself 'Theisles'. Calls for admin to check whether these are
> sockpuppets have been ignored - the administrators are only concerned
> whether the various other editors are sockpuppets (for me!). It would
> also be interesting to see who set the article up last month.
The article was created by someone with administrative privileges (I
think), called 'Hu12', the person posing as the impartial authority.
Note that at the time 'TheIsles' began posting back in October 2006 (and
it was 'TheIsles' who first injected the Howe claim in the other two
Wikipedia pages, 'King of Mann' and 'Lord of Mann'), David Howe was
calling himself "David Howe-Stanley, Prince of Mann and The Isles." It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who would have chosen the
handle 'TheIsles', even though TheIsles, precisely once, denied being
Howe when challenged about it. But later on 'Theisles' abruptly stopped
contributing, at precisely the moment 'Lazydown' first appeared.
> The claimant has talked about launching an "aggressive internet
> marketing campaign" and has form for using Wikipedia as a tool for
> exactly this. He also has form for posting on google groups using
> aliases - to the extent that he had 'conversations' with himself.
> That should be enough to cause concern.
>
> My own view is that the whole article should be deleted, as happened
> last time, but I am not going to try to get directly involved. I am
> sympathetic to Wikipedia but have always considered that it would be a
> failure in practice, and I have no interest in learning how to become
> an editor myself. It is a distraction as far as I am concerned. But
> don't be influenced by my views, Will - read it for yourself and make
> up your own mind.
Michael, what is needed is a journal article covering the legal and
genealogical bases of the claims, to appear in one of the decent,
editorially reviewed genealogical journals. The problem is that most of
these are quarterly and the earliest such an article could appear might
be four to six months.
The problem is that the genealogical component of the claim is not
controversial in the slightest. Folks who don't know any better are
assuming that that is the weak point of the claim: perhaps Howe is
banking on this: by triumphantly dragging out proofs of his descent
after it is challenged, he might lead the unwary to assume that he has
actually supported a claim to a title.
For the blood pressure, one might just as well take the tack of waiting
to see how absurd this whole episode might get before a reasoned
rebuttal appears in print.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Leticia Cluff
>Dear fellow Listers,
> I believe the title Prince / Princess as a child
>of the royal family begun it`s usage in England under King Edward III as did
>the title of Duke.
If the Oxford English Dictionary can be accepted as a more reliable
source than Wikipedia, then what you believe about the title and its
usage is roughly correct. However, "prince" at first did not refer to
ANY child of the royal family, but only to the eldest son.
Here's the relevant definition plus an illuminating quotation from the
OED:
Quote
7. A male member of a royal family other than a reigning king (in
early use also a princess); esp. in the United Kingdom, a son or
grandson of a monarch (also as a prefixed title).
Originally in Prince of Wales, a title of the deposed Welsh rulers
conferred (from the 14th. cent. on) upon the eldest surviving son of
the King or Queen of England, the epithet prince being later extended
to all male children of the reigning British royal family and,
eventually, those of other countries
[...]
1577 W. HARRISON Descr. Eng. (1877) II. v. I. 106 The title of prince
dooth peculiarlie belong to the kings eldest sonne... The kings
yoonger sonnes be but gentlemen by birth (till they haue receiued
creation of higher estate, to be either visconts, earles, or dukes)
and called after their names, as lord Henrie, or lord Edward.
End quote
Tish
(hoping that Bill will not bother to reply this time)
M.Sjostrom
I had had an impression that not even Elizabeth
Stuart, Queen of Bohemia (the Winter Queen), had been
known as princess, but as Lady Elizabeth.
And that the princess thing -as used honorific for
royal kids, contrary to real or titular rulers of some
territories- consequently came to use in Britain only
in 1600s or so.
The Harrison mention seemingly from 1577 seems to
support my this understanding.
As "younger sons of kings" are not princes in that
period language.
By the way, the honorifics "infanta", "infante" in
Iberian peninsula however was afaik in attested use
already several centuries earlier, say in 1200s at
latest.
Leticia Cluff
wrote:
>
>I had had an impression that not even Elizabeth
>Stuart, Queen of Bohemia (the Winter Queen), had been
>known as princess, but as Lady Elizabeth.
>
>And that the princess thing -as used honorific for
>royal kids, contrary to real or titular rulers of some
>territories- consequently came to use in Britain only
>in 1600s or so.
>
>The Harrison mention seemingly from 1577 seems to
>support my this understanding.
>As "younger sons of kings" are not princes in that
>period language.
So the expression "the princes in the tower" would not have been used
by any contemporaries of Richard III?
When Harrison in 1577 says that the title of prince peculiarly belongs
to the king's eldest son, perhaps it is because he felt the need to
emphasize this original usage against a looser application of the term
that was becoming current in his day. Otherwise he would only have
been stating the obvious. I suspect he is being prescriptive rather
than descriptive here.
Tish
M.Sjostrom
about princes:
It seems to be a fact that in 1500s, in France, heads
of cadet branches of the Capetian Royal House were
called princes.
Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome, is mentioned as
"Prince of the Blood", premier prince du sang.
And so was his son, the later king Henry IV.
Rene de Rohan, or at least some de Rohan, was premier
prince du sang de Navarre, a tad later.
In 1600s, real counts and substantive titleholders
above that level, were Noble and Puissant princes,
Count of this or that, or whatnot (Marquess, Duke)
And their wives as a general class were Noble and
Puissant princesses.
A tad later (1700s), Holy Roman Emperors went around
to explicitly grant the rights to be "gefürstete Graf"
M.Sjostrom
"So the expression "the princes in the tower" would
not have been used by any contemporaries of Richard
III? "
possibly not. But rather more likely they would have
been thought as "the two Princes in the Tower"
- in the sense like if one puts today the Prince of
Monaco and the Prince of Liechtenstein to the Tower.
At that time, the young Richard was Duke of York and
Norfolk; Edward had been king briefly, but was
possibly better known as Prince of Wales.
It is thus relatively possible that people may have
thought them as substantive Princes, one of them
titular fiefholder over Wales and the other, noble and
puissant Prince, as duke over those two English
things.
Leticia Cluff
wrote:
>
>"So the expression "the princes in the tower" would
>not have been used by any contemporaries of Richard
>III? "
>
>
>possibly not. But rather more likely they would have
>been thought as "the two Princes in the Tower"
>- in the sense like if one puts today the Prince of
>Monaco and the Prince of Liechtenstein to the Tower.
>
>
>At that time, the young Richard was Duke of York and
>Norfolk; Edward had been king briefly, but was
>possibly better known as Prince of Wales.
>
>It is thus relatively possible that people may have
>thought them as substantive Princes, one of them
>titular fiefholder over Wales and the other, noble and
>puissant Prince, as duke over those two English
>things.
I see that Sir Thomas More, who wrote his History of King Richard III
between 1513 and 1518, referred to them as "these two noble princes,
these innocent tender children" and speaks of "the tender age of the
young princes, his nephews."
Tish
M.Sjostrom
The real test of when the general honorific of
prince/-ss came into British use as belonging to
younger kids of a monarch, like as a birthright, would
be:
if an unmarried, un-betrothed, non-fiefed,
not-specifically-propertied daughter of a king gets
called as "princess"
Mike Stone
wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:16:42 -0800 (PST), "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"So the expression "theprincesin thetower" would
> >not have been used by any contemporaries of Richard
> >III? "
>
> >possibly not. But rather more likely they would have
> >been thought as "the twoPrincesin theTower"
> >- in the sense like if one puts today the Prince of
> >Monaco and the Prince of Liechtenstein to theTower.
>
> >At that time, the young Richard was Duke of York and
> >Norfolk; Edward had been king briefly, but was
> >possibly better known as Prince of Wales.
>
> >It is thus relatively possible that people may have
> >titular fiefholder over Wales and the other, noble and
> >puissant Prince, as duke over those two English
> >things.
>
> I see that Sir Thomas More, who wrote his History of King Richard III
> between 1513 and 1518, referred to them as "these two nobleprinces,
> these innocent tender children" and speaks of "the tender age of the
> youngprinces, his nephews."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I also str the future Mary I taking somebody to task for referring to
her half-sister Elizabeth as "the Princess". She tartly responded that
"I know of no Princess in England except myself, though I will gladly
call her sister, as I call my Lord of Richmond brother". Richmond, of
course, was her father's _bastard_, by a mistress, so this was strong
stuff.
This suggests to me that the usage probably came in with the Tudors,
along with "Majesty" rather than "Grace" for the sovereign.
I do recall one earlier use of the term. In 1470, when Warwick the
Kingmaker was negotiating an alliance with Queen Margaret of Anjou,
the latter reportedly claimed that she had "the offer of the Princesse
[Elizabeth of York] for her sonne" and so had no need to marry him to
Warwick's daughter. However, Queen Margaret was of course French, and
may have been following the usage of her native country.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
I don't know why anyone should think I'm insular.
Why, I even know the French for dentures - Aperitif!