Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)

; Archives
	August 4 – August 10 2006; August 10 – August 28 2006; ;

I've archived the second set of discussions due to length. The first archive deals with the issues of the original version of the guideline (most of which no longer exists). The second archive deals with the restructuring and new criteria. It seems that agreement has been reached on most points; the last roadblock (thus far) is to more fully define what constitutes "higher nobility" in different countries. Kafziel 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel, you seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that regular edits have to be discussed beforehand. Please see WP:BOLD and WP:NOT (not a bureaucracy). If you disagree with something please give a reason and discuss; don't disagree for the sole reason that "process wasn't followed". >Radiant< 15:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of pages link here, and not just via the notability template. When you moved the page you created an insane amount of double redirects, and you just left them. Reverting was the easiest way to fix that. I actually don't oppose a move to another title (if it's done right), but "notability (nobility)" just doesn't sound good. Maybe something like "royalty and nobility"? I guess it's a moot point anyway until the merge proposal is finished. Kafziel 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please get your facts straight. Only 60 pages link here, and only two of those are redirects (and only seven pages link to those redirects). I do not consider two to be "an insane amount". >Radiant< 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, with 3 in favor and 2 against

This should be merged with WP:BIO because it's an obvious part of 'people' and as such pretty much redundant. >Radiant< 15:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be merged as indicated. There's not so much to be said about royalty that it can't be said in the main people guideline. Friday (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a complicated guideline that needs enough room to handle the various definitions of nobility in different cultures. As has been discussed previously, it's too complex to simplify into a bullet point at WP:BIO. It will grow as each country's definition of "higher nobility" is established. I know you're trying to get rid of porn stars, athletes, and professors, too, but there comes a point where a guideline becomes so inclusive as to be useless. What's the harm in having more specialized guidelines? Kafziel 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd say that the proposed guideline is way too complicated. Could you give some examples of articles on people that would be deletable under WP:BIO but not under this guideline? >Radiant< 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's exactly as complicated as it needs to be, no more, no less. A lot of discussion has gone into getting it right (and, as I note on the talk page, almost none of what currently exists was my own idea). If you look at the archives, you'll see examples of attempted AfDs. The subjects may or may not meet BIO, but were held to be notable by consensus simply because of their nobility. Kafziel 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll look through the history some more. But this is precisely the point: I try to prevent contradictory guidelines. If for any article WP:BIO says 'delete' and WP:NOBLE says 'keep', something is not right (which would likely be resolved by merging this one into that one). If both guidelines are always in accord, then one is redundant. >Radiant< 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then please do look at the archives, because this has all been discussed already. It's not in conflict with WP:BIO. It clarifies some finer points that BIO doesn't have the space to do. As you must be aware, BIO is a guideline, not policy. It is, therefore, intentionally vague on some points. Nobility is a very complicated subject, and it takes more than a blurb to properly outline the requirements. The criteria here have gained consensus through precedents on AfD, and they help clarify (for ignorant people like me) what the difference is between a notable Duke and a non-notable Archduke. Kafziel 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't quite follow you, as this page refers to neither a duke nor an archduke. >Radiant< 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it would be evident if the reader had an example. Let's say you've got an archduke from Germany (where most of the modern ones are). Germany doesn't legally recognize titles. So archdukes aren't covered by this guideline, as per Nobility-2. Let's say you have a Duke from England. England Dukes are members of the peerage. So he's notable under Nobility-1. It doesn't have a comprehensive list of titles (yet) because each country is different and we need a separate subsection for each. I won't deny it takes some getting used to, just like the ins and outs of any other guideline. But it's accurate, and follows consensus. It certainly won't be any less confusing if we try to condense it down to a paragraph at BIO. Kafziel 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. At this time, I think that the guideline is short enough, that it's worth including in WP:BIO. If it continues to expand in size in the future, then it can be easily separated back out to its own page, but I don't think that there's enough here to justify a separate guideline at the current time. --Elonka 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion underscores the ridiculousness of notability critera. Regardless of this page, people's significance will be up to consensus. Fresheneesz 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. Kafziel initiated this guideline in response to a genuine need on WP, although I think the guideline articulates it inadequately: Some people are "notable" not by virtue of what they do, but by virtue of who they are, i.e. by virtue of a position they inherit in society. Royalty and (some) nobility are such people. I suspect that Western Wiki editors tend to be, and increasingly so, egalitarian and pro-meritocracy, and therefore intuitively suspect aristocracy's notability as POV. But a significant minority of Wiki editors embrace that notability (not because they're particularly anti-egalitarian so much as because they are "history conservationists"), and are busily adding and editing articles about obscure aristocrats to WP. Kafziel's guideline tries to steer a middle course between those who think notability largely hinges upon what individuals do and those who think it also includes anybody whose elevated position in society attracts interest in his or her life. For the latter, all 900 of those in the Line of succession to the British Throne may merit articles, whereas the former often doubt that even a currently reigning monarch's second-born son is inherently notable. This guideline is intended to spare those two groups from warring over each and every article written about a royal or noble whose personal acts don't add up to notability, by defining some royals and nobles as automatically article-worthy, and implicitly defining others as not. This guideline, I believe, will actually exclude most articles about royalty/nobility currently on WP (see, for example, the number of Wiki entries arising from Rulers of Hesse, although that is not Kafziel's intent. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica widely regarded on Wiki as a model took the view that persons and families born into high positions (particularly in Britain) merited articles -- even if they did not exercise notable impact on history -- because people often wished to look up details about their history and positions. That persists in modern monarchies. Every monarchy has laws restricting who members of their royal family may marry, but no country, monarchy or republic, has such laws restricting who their Prime Minister or his family members may marry. For the exact same reason -- importance in dynasties is due to family status, whereas importance in office is due to deeds -- royalty are intrinsically notable in ways that defy recent trends toward individualism and meritocracy. That needs to be acknowledged, but also limited, to keep it from growing to irritating proportions and to keep it out of edit wars. This guideline attempts to do that. Fix it, don't end it. Lethiere 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Systemic bias?

Now I'm sorry if I seem to be overcritizing this page but I just simply don't get it. I'm sure that people worked hard on it and have been discussing it for quite a while, but if the point of a guideline is only obvious after looking through several weeks' worth of conversation, then it's not a very good guideline. The archives also have several comments along the lines of "unless this is intended to solve some sort of actual controversy that is taking place, it seems entirely arbitrary". At the very least this page should state its purpose.

The page lists five points, two under "nobility" and three under "lesser nobility". Now it seems to me that most of those are redundant: anyone from the royal family, or in a high position with legal status, in an official capacity such as ambassador, or in a national order would already be notable per WP:BIO (indeed, we don't need a list to say that "presidents, nobel laureates and famous actors" are automatically notable).

The first point, however, is that British Peers and holders of courtesy titles are automatically notable. First, this appears to be a case of systemic bias. And second, there are quite a lot of barons and their wifes and heirs, and I'm sure that several of them do important things or frequently appear in the news, but I'm not at all convinced that all of them are de facto notable.

I wholeheartedly agree that a Royal Family of any real country is notable (AFD seems to agree, e.g. Arthur Chatto), and would be happy to add that to WP:BIO, but other than that I think we should reconsider the need of this page. >Radiant< 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems redundant with WP:BIO. In the cases where this guideline would apply, WP:BIO already clarifies that they are notable and, as said above, if WP:BIO says they aren't notable and this says they are, that is a peculiar contradiction that if necessary could be satisfied with a few phrases properly within WP:BIO. In the rest of the cases, this guideline just says 'refer to WP:BIO'. The only part that is different is "The subject is no further than 8th in the order of succession to the throne.", but this is just arbitrary; the order of succession is never exhausted so far, why not 6th or 10th? WP:BIO already would cover this where appropriate, and again could be clarified by a short addition to it. —Centrx→talk • 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really done trying to explain this over and over and over and over and over and over. I guess this vocal minority is content to let the ambiguity of BIO continue to make gigantic debates out of the subject of nobility, so I don't really care what happens to it anymore. I do want to point out, however, that 8th in the line of succession is not arbitrary, and if you read the previous discussions you would see that it has been exhausted that far. The whole matter—like every other question and objection that has been raised—has already been discussed at length and settled to (we thought) everyone's satisfaction. I really can't be bothered to do any more with this. Kafziel 21:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barons really notable?

I'd like to propose taking off English minor peers, such as Barons, from the automatic notability list. There must be hundreds if not thousands of them, and as far as I'm aware they form no part of the English succession. Espresso Addict 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define minor? Why is an hereditary viscount, earl, marquess or duke any more notable than an hereditary baron, other than having inherited a higher title? Apart from the handful of Royal Dukes and a few others who are related to the Royal Family in some way or other, none have anything to do with the succession. Besides, it has always been an apparent unwritten rule that all British peers are notable. -- Necrothesp 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally be happy to remove all peers lacking other notability, but I thought that was unlikely to gain much support. The higher ranks of the peerage are significantly fewer in number than the lower ranks, and so contribute considerably less visible 'royaltycruft', if I may use the term. As to your second point, I thought this was a page for discussing unwritten rules? Espresso Addict 01:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is, but your proposal would lead to mass deletions of articles that are already here. The simple fact is that people tend to be interested in other people with titles. Also remember that until recently these people were all members of parliament. -- Necrothesp 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last point makes very good grounds for reconsidering the policy ;) Eh, perhaps I just got ticked off by someone on AfD insisting that the eldest son of a baron is inherently notable, per this page. Espresso Addict 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That person misread the policy: Henry Lytton-Cobbold is neither a peer nor holder of a courtesy title (because heirs of viscounts and barons do not bear courtesy titles. They do hold the courtesy style of "Honourable", but that's different :-) However, if you want to pursue this, barons are not the ones to build your case on. That's because there are so many of them because most are life peers rather than hereditary nobles. Therefore they will almost certainly have done something to merit the title, and that "something" will have been written up by the media at the time of ennoblement, so they will pass Wiki's test of notability even without this proposed guideline. Hereditary peers are a shrinking lot because only one (Harold MacMillan in 1984, as a retiring Prime Minister) has been created (with the expectation that the title would pass) on in more than 40 years (in the UK: Belgium and Spain, for instance, continue to create hereditary nobility). From 1964 the number of life barons rose (they were only allowed since 1958, and more than 1,000 have since been created), and they continue to be created. The ranks above baron are not made life peers, and they were discontinued earlier than the 1960s, the higher the title: the last marquess was in the 1930s, and the last (non-royal) duke was in 1874. So they too are shrinking naturally. There are many hundred fewer viscounties than baronies. If you wanted to delete all nobles created in the UK below the rank of earl you would, as noted earlier, be deleting hundreds of articles, and hundreds more for the higher titles because, although rarer, higher titles are more likely to have individual entries for each peer in the family (and often their titled relatives), and many extinct peerages have Wiki articles. Part of the point of this guideline was to recognize that many of them are here already and some being created as we write. One problem with eliminating that part of the "unwritten" rule is that it simply follows the practice of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, generally regarded as a model for Wikipedia, which did treat peers and royalty as inherently notable. But a point made above also bears repeating: so many articles about titled people are being written on Wiki because, despite the disinterest of most and the disapproval of some, many people do find titled nobles worth reading about per se, and will add them if they don't find them. Lethiere 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the point about the heir of Barons/Viscounts; I'd thought that was the case, but thought I must be missing something. Perhaps that could be explicitly stated in the notability guidelines to avoid further confusion?

I have little objection to life peers being included, as their contributions are almost always either noteworthy or at least notorious. Also the argument that previously peers had the automatic right to sit in one of the Houses of Parliament takes care of all peers born/created before the cut-off date, so there's no great need to delete pages retrospectively. This change also makes the policy of the 1911 Britannica entirely inapplicable. (I've never seen the fact that 1911 Britannica doesn't include pages for computer programs cited in software AfDs ;) )

However, while I do take your point that the number of hereditary peers is currently shrinking, there's still hundreds of articles that are pure nobilitycruft, with no more real notability than, say, the children of pop stars, who are explicitly excluded under current guidelines. Just because articles are being created in good faith doesn't necessarily mean that the articles should be allowed to remain -- witness the numerous pages created and speedied daily. Perhaps it's time to draw some lines in the sand? Espresso Addict 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. As a sometime perpetrator of nobilitycruft, I'd suggest that perhaps nobility should be considered some sort of mitigating or enhancing factor to notability (with regards to post-"reform" peers). If the amount of data supplied doesn't rise above birthdate, enumeration of family, and occupancy of family home, it should be fair game for deletion. On the other hand, if it says that Lord X was educated at Eton, trained as a solicitor, has worked with minor legal firm Foo & Co. since 1973, and chairs the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Shrubbery—which would probably not be notable achievements in isolation—perhaps his peerage should put him over the top for acceptability. (Incidentally, as regards courtesy peers, I can think of an exception to their automatic notability—only those that reach their majority, or do something exceptional in their minority ought to be listed.) Choess 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that nobility could be considered a 'Brownie point' on the notability scale. If nothing else, it increases the likelihood that the person's existence can be independently validated. What I'm not in favour of is the automatic notability which the current guidelines would seem to confer on inherited titles where the holder has no other obvious notability. PS No offence, I hope, on the nobilitycruft coinage -- tongue firmly in cheek there. Espresso Addict 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, none taken. I tend to be fairly deletionist, in fact, but I'm easily seduced by the prospect of filling holes in orderly sequences (like the nobility). I think Necrothesp's suggestion, below, that the HoL reform of 1999 be set as a cut-off date (depriving hereditary peers of their legislative rights, a substantial part of the case for automatic notability) is the way to go on this. Choess 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither a given that consensus wants articles on all barons, nor that not explicitly stating so in a proposal would lead to mass deletions. I think a prudent way to gauge consensus would be to nominate three or four articles on a lesser baron for deletion, and see what debate develops. This guideline should reflect actual practice. >Radiant< 08:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quite imagine how this process would be a reliable measure. I would predict that many of those that monitor AfD disapprove or don't see notability in nobles per se, period. I would also predict that many of those that do, don't monitor AfD and monitor some barons, but not most, therefore their points of view would probably be under-represented and their votes largely absent. The deck seems stacked to me ab initio, and I'm not sure that I would consider the outcome representative, or that others interested in nobility but not notified of the vote would consider it so either. I think that the hope for this guideline, before it ran out of steam, was to propose a relevant and reasonable standard/cut-off, gather input for it over time, and then put the proposal through WP's vetting process, having already gradually garnered the attention of interested editors. That said, I'm merely expressing my view, and I have no objection to taking such a poll to see what issues get raised, although I don't know how one would select "minor" barons from all those out there. Also, this leaves out Continental barons. Lethiere 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly when we still have articles certain Scottish feudal titles articles that appear vanity projects they seem a rather more obvious candidates than barons for removal Alci12 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose 'em all for AfD -- I'd certainly vote to remove them! (As long as there was no other evidence of notability.) Espresso Addict 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen those. The content probably should be moved out in penny-packets to the articles on previous holders, or such of them as are notable, and the residue zapped — their content on the supposed feudal baronies themselves is minimal. But appeal to bad precedents is not a good defense of other articles. Choess 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per deck stacking on AfD, the proposed deletions could be notified at relevant pages (such as this one, or the relevant Biography workgroup) to ensure that everyone got a fair say. Though that might stack the deck for inclusionists. Espresso Addict 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO states that "members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are notable. That means that all peers who inherited their title before their right to sit in the Lords was abolished are notable even under our main biographical notability standard. There are currently very few barons who succeeded to the title after their right to sit was abolished. So that leaves only a handful of barons who are not inherently notable, does it not? -- Necrothesp 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I agree that peers who held the right to sit in the House of Lords clearly meet WP:BIO. I think the real question here is, are peers considered notable because they have the right to sit in the House of Lords (in which case, post-reform peers are no longer automatically notable and these guidelines should reflect that), or for some unstated independent reason? If we're talking about a reason for notability that's independent of the former legislative role, then I think that should be made clear, so that those of a republican mind can argue against. Espresso Addict 21:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive rather than prescriptive. The reason I suggested AFD is that most notability guidelines are based, for a large part, on AFD discussions. It is not true that AFD is inherently biased against any class of articles; indeed, it is monitored both by people who 'clean out' and by people eager to save articles. At some point in the future, someone will undoubtedly nominate some article on nobility for deletion - if by that point this guideline hasn't taken AFD precedent into consideration, one cannot reasonably expect that AFD will take this guideline into consideration. >Radiant< 20:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong (please point to examples, if you know of any), but I don't get the impression that the guidelines reflect the tenor of AfD discussions over the past months. I've seen a number of articles retained based on nth-heir-to-the-throne claims, but I can't offhand recall examples based on peerages with no heir-to-the-throne claim. Espresso Addict 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean this guideline, or other guidelines? I don't think we should state a specific N such that the first N heirs are notable and the rest aren't (since any N would be arbitrary); rather, we could state that people "close" in line to the throne are notable for that reason. I don't have any examples for you since I haven't read AFD lately, and neither am I an expert on British nobility. My point is simply that if you expect AFD to use this as a guideline for keeping or deleting articles on nobles, it would help to have some precedent. >Radiant< 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - When previously discussed, the rationale for choosing a specific N was that it was a compromise between those who consider anyone in Britain's 900+ line of succession to the British throne Wiki-notable (and articles on them proliferate as we speak), and those who suggested some specific N as an automatic cut-off. The number selected, 8, was by no means arbitrary (in fairness, the rationale presented raised no dissent that I can recall other than mine): Historically, no monarch could be identified as succeeding to a European throne who had been any further removed in the order of succession than eighth: Duke Maximilian I of Pfalz-Zweibrucken became Elector of Bavaria in 1799, and Prince Carlo Alberto of Savoy-Carignan became King of Sardinia in 1831, each having at one time been as far down as #8. Calculated by consanguinity, the most distant kinsman to succeed was believed to be Henri IV le Grand de Bourbon, King of Navarre, who succeeded {after war} his 9th cousin-once-removed on the throne of France in 1689. It's possible, though, that ex-Duke Adolf of Nassau was even more distantly related to King Willem III of the Netherlands when he succeeded him in 1890 as Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg -- but no one has advocated extending notability out to 9th cousin! I agree that this guideline should take under consideration AfD discussions on the notability of royalty and nobility, but I don't know how one would efficiently dredge up such data? Lethiere 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to these guidelines. I'm actually coming at this from the opposite angle, as I was pointed at this page from the currently ongoing AfD debate on Henry Lytton-Cobbold. I agree that the fixed n argument is peculiar, but I've seen it used several times over the past months on AfD. Espresso Addict 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand corrected, the limit has a far better reason than I thought. Maybe a short sentence explaining this should be added to the page? >Radiant< 09:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather idealized. The degree to which AfD represents an informed consensus will vary widely from example to example; a clear and well-justified guideline will, in fact, carry some prescriptive weight among those who may not be intimately familiar with the workings of the British honours system. Choess 22:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's idealized. However, this page shouldn't be strictly based on AFD debate - it should take it into account, and also take expertise on the subject into account. >Radiant< 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]