Talk:Biffeche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on August 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Apparently, the article actually was not ever properly nominated for deletion, so noone ever closed the "Vfd", because the link had only been posted on the article, please see WP:VFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Step III is somewhat important. GeeJo (talk) 01:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on December 24, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Needs more references 2 Article structure 3 More digging 4 Satellite images 5 Not a hoax!

[edit] Needs more references

I'm having trouble finding anything on the web for this besides Biffeche's own site. The whole thing's odd enough that I'm very uncomfortable not having more references on this--a kingdom run by an American in Senegal that co-rules a kingdom in Ghana? I can't find it referred to in Academic Search Premier or JSTOR either; unless somebody can post a news story or related item about this soon, I'm worried Wiki may be perpetuating someone's hoax here. (At least two anons have posted here feeling this was the case, and sadly, been ignored, as above...) --Dvyost 07:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This goes for Bethio too. --Dvyost 07:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

It seems to me that a lot of this article is probably correct. Where it starts to become improbable is in the appropriation of the genuine historical kingdom by a modern micronation of dubious provenance. So mostly I think the article needs to be re-written to keep what's real and delete what's not. Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm going to be bold and do just that. Dlyons493 Talk 15:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though, we can't really put in articles by "probability," but only by sources. I'm not comfortable with even one sentence remaining here that we can't find a citation for. --Dvyost 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Even though you've removed the most obvious dubious content, most of what remains still was present in the original edit - the same edit that included the bit about the American being proclaimed king. I don't see how we can destruct this article into anything proper. It needs to be constructed anew based on credible sources. If that's not possible, then it's much better to have no article. ×Meegs 16:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied back from User talk:Dvyost to maintain discussion unity: Hi, Have a look at ref 29 in [1] re the history - that looks reputable and citable to me. I doubt if there are any sources for the modern village but don't imagine that anyone would particularly want to invent that material - suggest you just delete it if you're uncomfortable with it (personally I'm prepared to take that bit on trust as it fits with the little I know about the region)? Dlyons493 Talk 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me the page you're looking at in that PDF document? I don't seem to be having any luck searching for Biffeche in it (though I did find Bethio, much to my relief--worried we had a couple of fictional kingdoms in here). --Dvyost 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

reference 29 on page 43. Bifeche with one f ×Meegs 17:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! So if I'm reading this right, the kingdom of the little Brak appears to be named Gangueul, with a capital at Maka, on the island of Bifeche? I'm glad to see that Brak is actually the correct term for this--I figured that was just put in by a Space Ghost fan... --Dvyost 17:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re History - I've also found a ref to F. THÉSÉE, Actes du colloque de Nantes, tome I, 1988, p. 223 à 245 which seems in general agreement - there's an extract at [2]

RE Geography and ethnography I think Google can verify those adequately - try Parc du Djoudj and e.g. [3] for the tribes. Even the tomato industry is plausible although unconfirmed e.g. [4]

Dlyons493 Talk 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Never thought I'd spend Christmas Eve verifying tomatoes! Sad!! But satisying!!! See [5] Dlyons493 Talk 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dlyons, you're rapidly becoming my new wikihero for your stellar research here (and double kudos for the holiday overtime). Over the next couple of days let's rework this with your references point-by-point--I feel we need to be extra careful with this one--and then ask folks to change their vote on the AfD. The last thing I think we need to reword here is the idea of the "Kingdom of Biffeche"; it still looks to me as if the island is named Biffeche and once held a loosely organized polity named Gangueul, under the Waalo--is this your understanding, too? So far as I can tell you've confirmed everything else that remains. Again--you rock. --Dvyost 23:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That's all pretty much my view also. Thanks for the compliment and very well done to you for spotting the ancient nonsense in the first place. Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More digging

Obviously this is getting into original research, but it is of background interest if any fancies investigation. A number of Senegal tourism websites mention Savoigne: such as this one - no reference to any kingdom - and this one, which mentions "Savoigne (le royaume de Bifèche)".

I also found a website for Saint Blaise Statues, a Catholic mission and factory school in Savoigne, with contact details for Père Emmanuel Zanaboni - who must be the same guy who gets the diatribe in the FAQ2 at the Kingdom of Biffeche website. Tearlach 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite images

I believe both of the satellite images linked are way off, though I'm not comfortable enough with the geography to fix them. The one in-line is a little too far south in the delta, and the one in the external links is about 100 miles east of the delta. Things have definitely changed since the antique maps were drawn, but it seems to me that the island is somewhere here, but not easily distinguishable because the water to its east is not visible. I could easily be wrong, but in any case, the satellite images are not useful enough to be cited inside the article. ×Meegs 05:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Once you've found a particular position in google maps, remember that you have to click Link to this page to regenerate the correct URL for any panning and zooming that you've done ×Meegs 05:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not a hoax!

The modern micronation of Biffeche absolutely does exist. A close relative of mine spent several months there (he is a friend of King Ronald) working. I can produce photographs if desired. It is indeed a strangely set up place, with the American king and all, but that's all the more reason to include information about it here. Barring objection, I'm going to re-add the removed information about modern Biffeche (without removing the article's current content of course), although I concede that I cannot provide any websites that prove its existence. Like I said, however, I do have photographs of the grave/monument to King Edward, as well as other Biffeche scenes if there is still skepticism. As for the anthem, it does indeed exist, although I am unsure as to whether it is actually ever played in Biffeche, so I won't resurrect that article. Elmer Clark 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Elmer, I'm afraid Wikipedia strictly prohibits this sort of original research; check out WP:NOR. Please do not readd this information until such verification is found. We're going to need some kind of print source to verify its existence... any ideas on where we could find one? --Dvyost 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Currently the only published source for the existence of this micronation is its own website. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the point of personal websites as primary sources: "we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing". Tearlach 12:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair point. This is a rather interesting situation...the fact that most interest in the place would be merely trivial makes it pretty unlikely that a whole lot of info about it would be available anywhere, which is apparently the case. It just seems against the spirit of Wikipedia for information provable to be true to be removed. Still, I suppose there's nothing to be done about it, except hope they strike oil and CNN covers it. -Elmer Clark 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It just seems against the spirit of Wikipedia for information provable to be true to be removed'.

I'm not sure what you mean. Everyone else here has been working exactly by the spirit of Wikipedia, which is that verifiability, not truth is the criterion. Because the standard fact-checking procedures used by other publications can't be relied on (anyone here can claim what they like) only material in reputable publications is treated as a valid source. There are hints that could be traced. www.kingdomofbiffeche.net/history.htm says of King Edward I that "Esquire magazine had an article on his Kingdom". So find it.

Off the record, I think it's a very interesting situation. There's plenty of collateral information if we get into original research. We can look up Ronald Reisinger's list of honours ("Baron of Culbin, Garlies, Carstairs and the territorial earldom of Crawfurd-Lindsay and Laird of Ascog") [6] and conclude that they're defunct titles for crappy bits of Scotland that he bought for cash. You can check out the aristocrats of Biffeche and find that, say, "The Ladies Ann and Ellen Fusz, who have long been staunch financial supporters of the Kingdom" are a couple of retired teachers in the St Louis Opera Guild, St Louis, Missouri. And so on.

But as you say, until they strike oil and CNN covers it, this is all by-the-by. Tearlach 01:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite mean that. I just meant that it seems odd that verifiably true information (albeit not verifiable within the Wikipedia guidelines) would be removed from an article. Like I said though, I recognize that its removal was completely in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.

And regarding the king, I'm not entirely sure how seriously he takes all this, but the people of Biffeche do recognize him as their king (for the sake of money no doubt). -Elmer Clark 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)