Talk:Almanach de Gotha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The new Almanach

This article is rather too much of a plug for the new Almanach de Gotha published in London. I have added a qualifying statement and a link to a review of the Gotha, but the article probably needs some more tweaking. Donald Renouf, 15.12 pm 19 July 2005 (BST)

Donald is correct that the new Gotha is spoof. We should mention probably that the old Gotha was quite a racist enterprise, concerned with mediatizied German families mostly. Where were the Girays? Where were the Bagrations? While they deserved a prominent place in the first section, they were denied a place in any section, because the Gotha editors didn't consider them European enough. --Ghirla | talk 00:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You know that, I know that, and you could mention it, but can you find a creditable source to support it? Giano | talk 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
To support what - that the Bagrations of Georgia were royals? --Ghirla | talk 19:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
"that the old Gotha was quite a racist enterprise" Giano | talk 19:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake or scam web sites

Most believe that the following web sites are total fakes or scams:

There is some evidence (lack of transparency) that the following web site is a fake or scam site also:

There are many additional fake web sites out there on nobility or on titles of one sort or another, but these here are a bit more subtle (at least for some). Anyone with information to the contrary or with other fake-scam web sites, please elaborate here.-RobertBlacknut 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Robertblacknut and his conclusion on certain websites that he has listed, as being in some way fake, at least two of them namely the first two mentioned are quite interesting with lots of good information on, personal attacks made without real proof are misleading in there given intent, readers beware of such attacks make your own mind up, dont have it made up for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian arnold (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Brian arnold, you no what they say nut by name nut by nature just a thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.56.221 (talk • contribs) — 81.154.56.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well, Brian arnold may be a single-purpose account, but this is a single-purpose anonymous! --Nehwyn 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it certainly seems that the first two web sites above are complete scams and frauds (since they are run by the scamster extraordinaire "Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland"), there may be some evidence that the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty is not a fraud. Although the "Commission" was not chartered by some previous international committee, agency, or the like, it may actually not be a scam either. It claims some legitimacy by being recognized (or fill in your choice of words here) by two additional Internet organizations. These two other organizations are:

I have not examined the claims involved here, but I provide the information for the consideration of others. Some friendly advice to the "Commission" would be to clean up the English grammar and prose on its web site. It is easier to be taken more seriously when the site doesn't read similarly (with poor English or grammar mistakes) as so many fake-scam web sites have. Even a very few mistakes (as could be considered the situation in the present case) go a long way towards making an organization sound bad and therefore judged accordingly. -RobertBlacknut 02:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above allegations are mostly personal attacks, Wikipedia readers beware this is not what Wikipedia was set up for, quite sad, I think!
Most believe that the following web sites are real and true and are not scams of any sort:
The Persons who tryed to remove my comments on this comments page are not permitted under wikipedia rules to remove them this page is set aside for free thought matter and as such no part maybe removed, read the rules of wikipedia , you will be reported and can be barred from editing such pages in the future. 86.141.194.174 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Special Note: The above personal attacks on the said Person 'Prinz Karl von Deutschland' lack any sort of official proof , individuals who make such attacks should be banned from Wikipedia lacking Official proof to verify their aforesaid Scaming allegations, Wikipedia was not set up for personal attacks on indivduals but to list information helpful to web users, therefore please beware of such persons, Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.194.224 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be concern among several editors that these sites are scams - if you're looking to include them in the article in some way, do you have any evidence that they, and Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland, are legitimate? Miremare 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, there is at least one editor that seems to understand the due process and rules on wikipedia, as I am not the person or persons who made the aforemention scaming allegations it is not for me to verify any rights of legitimate standing, but for those making such allegations in the first place to verify their own official proof of so called scaming by the aformentioned Prince, when they do this then I will list proofs of legitimate standing that I have came across recently , thank you, Ian.--81.132.255.191 07:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperialcollegeofcountsandprinces etc

I've reverted this ext link. Anyone operating out of a Teddington PO Box no. can't be formally instituted. There are lots of spurious names amongst the real names. This looks like something similar to an Albany scam. Ian Cairns 22:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(A nice polite message for Ian Cairns, a Wikipedia brave heart, I thought you did not make personal attacks on individuals, I noted this on your profile!) further to your comments on the status of Royal Mail Po Box Numbers, Her Majesty The Queen , has Royal Mail PO Box Numbers for various departments in the Royal Household, various other European Royal Households use Po Box Numbers as well,including His Majesty King Leka of Albania, on your own comments mentioned are we to believe that listing a Po Box number means that one has dubious intentions and thus shows a lack of officialdom, just a thought Ian!.

In light of the above I have removed links to the websites http://www.almanachdechivalry.com/ and http://www.almanachdegotha.org/ which are all presumably owned and run by "Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland". Kigf 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC


  • PLEASE NOTE* The Fake International Commission on Nobility and Royalty, with its website www.nobility-royalty.com which you have given a link on the name Prinz Karl Friedrich von Deutschland, is not official in anyway and is dubious in its given intent, websites that refuse to show a valid mailing address, telephone number, and even an e-mail should be avoided, or who say the following requests :

'Members who contribute large sums of money will be given the designation of diplomates and fellows of the Commission--our highest non-royal, non-noble status if they contribute $2,500 or more. All contributing $5,000 or more will be given the status of high diplomates and fellows. To remain a diplomate and fellow in subsequent years only requires the yearly payment of $30.00 a year for continued membership. (see "Membership Categories" and "Ongoing Certification and Membership Costs" for details)'(* A TRUE SCAM *)  !One should look first before acting!

[edit] Grand inaccuracy

The Almanach recorded all births. Until 1918, any aristocrat wishing to marry, and for their progeny to carry their title had to marry a woman of similar rank.

This is simply not true at all. British aristocrats, for instance, have never had any such restriction, nor, so far as I am aware, did either French or Spanish aristocrats. For mere aristocracy, such a rule is, so far as I am aware, almost entirely German. Even for royal families, this seems inaccurate. There was certainly never such a rule in Britain - the rule instead was that the monarch had to approve all marriages, a rule which came about in 1774 after George III's brothers married below their station. We should not act as though a predominantly German quirk (the morganatic marriage) was a universal trait of aristocracy. john k 04:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the article does mention that : "....in Italy at least, where there has always been a slightly cavalier approach to the conventions. In England this has never been a problem as the British aristocracy have always married (if necessary) for money rather than breeding. In the 19th century many of England's duchesses were the daughters of American magnates: others were actresses selected largely on the basis of their physical charms". I'm not sure about Spanish nobility's rules but thay are mostly very grand and well bred indeed compared to the British aristocracy, as are the Italian aristos who seem to impose their own unspoken rules on such matters. Why don't you edit to make clear if you are unhappy with it Giano | talk 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotha and Coburg

Er, In 1763 Gotha was not a part of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, but of the Duchy of, well, Saxe-Gotha(-Altenburg). It only went to Coburg in 1826. What's the story here? john k 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is sort of complicated. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with that, but I believe that Duke Friedrich III was Duke of Saxe-Gotha, not of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. I'm going to change it. john k 12:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] an extract

Mikhail Katin-Jartsev (Russia, Moscow)

The Gotha almanac and Russian Empire


"One doesn't need to introduce this edition to the genealogists. Actually, this series of reference books have already long time ago gained recognition and could be considered to be the most well-known in the world.

The first volume of the calendar (as it used then to be called) with dates on the ruling dynasties came out in a saxonian town Gotha in 1763, but genealogical tables appeared in it only in year 1765. Family of publishers called Perthes owned the publishing house since 1785 yet for 5 generations, winning successfully competence with all concurrents. In the passed time they increased their incomes, their building also became bigger.

To the brown (afterwards it became dark red) Calendar of ruling dynasties in 1828 was added dark green volume with counts, in 1848 the dark blue one with barons, in 1900 the light blue with old nobility and in 1907 the light green with granted nobility.

Naturally, noble families from Russian Empire found their place in the European edition. In the second half of the 19th c. these were mainly baronial families from Baltic Provinces (Estonia, Livonia, Curonia and the isle of Oesel), and mostly the ones, which had branches who either stayed in Germany, or moved there in 16-18th c. Seldom genealogies of the princes of Rurik descent were made with mistakes, spouse surnames and geographical names were distorted.

In the beginning of this century came out articles on some polish families, - princes and counts,- who lived on the territory of Russian Empire.

Having been fully a private enterprise, the "Gotha" was compiled in a close collaboration with the Nobility archive in Vienna, Heraldry offices of Prussia, Bavaria and others. The editorial board has also every year sent proofs to Russia for making additions and corrections. Once the Empress Alexandra Fedorowna (wife of Nicholas II) has noticed that in the article on Russia the ruling dynasty was called "Romanow-Holstein-Gottorp". She couldn't stand the name, which reminded to readers German blood in Russian Tsars. At first she even prohibited to import the "Gothas", until the name changes. But then one has explained to her that it is no sense to make a scandal with the most strict and legitimist reference book, and historically correct name remained.

One could say, that with appearance of Vasily Arseniev in Germany a new stage of publication of Russian families was started. He emigrated from Soviet Russia to Koenigsberg in 1933, and took wit him his rich genealogical materials. They were not only very detailed and precise, but included also unique data on the family members who stayed in Russia. For example, the present chairman of Russian Nobility League prince A.K.Galitsyn, is mentioned in the volume for year 1940. Arseniev published in "Gotha", among others, articles on princes Gagarin, Trubetskoy, Galitsin (Golitsin), Kurakin, Gorchakov, Kochubei, Engalichev, Masalsky, Dadiani.

Sad to say, but Russian forces have put an end to the long activities of Perthes publishing house and the "Gotha" almanac. In 1945 building was destroyed by bombs, short afterwards the library was confiscated and taken to Russia, where it disappeared. The main editor Rolf v. Kutschenbach, was captured and died from hunger in a POW camp on Onega lake in the North." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shilkanni (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] General considerations on European nobility

I removed this section from the article, since it strays quite off-topic, and reads like an essay. I didn't really see any need for it. Here's what I removed:

The almanach recorded all births. Before 1918, almost any member of a continental ruling family (and many members of the continental, and especially German, nobility) wishing for their wife and progeny to carry their title, had to marry a woman of similar rank. The almanach's records were of vital importance to these people. The marriages of many members of the British Royal family would have been considered unequal by the standards of the aristocracy of Europe, including those of George V, George VI, and Charles, Prince of Wales. On the Continent, such marriages would have been morganatic, meaning that the lesser-ranked partner, usually the wife, and any progeny of the union could not inherit the higher-ranked partner's titles. She is usually given a lesser title in compensation.
In some European families even today breeding is important. Quite recently there was huge disquiet amongst the Habsburgs, Imperial family of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire when the 'would be' heir to the family throne married the daughter of a mere baron, even though the Baron in question was one of the richest men in the world. This requirement of breeding is not limited to former royal and Imperial houses, it is especially prevalent among the noble families of Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain. Johannes, Prince of Thurn and Taxis, a Bavarian aristocrat, married a student he met in a cafe, 33 years his junior, in the 1980s, but she was of equal rank. However, this lust for blue blood is now gradually receding, in Italy at least, where there has always been a slightly cavalier approach to the conventions. In England this has never been a problem as the British aristocracy have always married (if necessary) for money rather than breeding. In the late 19th century many of England's duchesses were the daughters of American magnates: others were actresses selected largely on the basis of their physical charms. Of great importance is the fact that in England and Scotland, unlike on the Continent, only the eldest son of a peer is himself a peer; all his brothers and sisters, and he himself until he inherits, are commoners on the same basis as other citizens. For example, Winston Churchill, though the grandson of a duke, was plain "Mr. Churchill" (until he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth on his own account).
The Imperial family of Austria used to demand at least 16 quarterings (i.e. every member of the family until the great-great-grandparents had to be entitled to (which in practice required some sort of nobility) a coat of arms, which could then be divided into 16 on a hatchment), before a person could marry into the dynasty. Today they have dropped these standards, likewise the aristocracy of Europe is following, but still the Almanach de Gotha follows their pedigrees; and as ever in spite of the almanach, the headship the Royal Family of the Two Sicilies remains in dispute, as does that of France and innumerable other noble houses; which proves that, to some people, the Almanach de Gotha will always fulfil a need.

BuddingJournalist 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in February 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels

Why does Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels redirect to this article? It is an entirely separate publication; one might as well redirect Burke's Peerage to Debrett's Peerage. 195.92.40.49 09:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. A separate article ought to be written on it. john k 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Because in genealogical and monarchist circles, it is common to say "the Gotha" when referring to the Handbuch after 1944 (as can be seen, for example, [here] and [here], which is widely treated as the original Gotha's successor. That's especially important because the "Almanach de Gotha" published since the late 1990s is not regarded as a continuation of -- or as reliable as -- the original Gotha. But it's existence has tended to drive out references to the Handbuch as "the Gotha" because people seek to avoid confusion. So the reference may become less prevalent than it was: all the more reason to make note of it. Agreed that a separate article on the Handbuch should be written. But until it is, the reference to the Handbuch is appropriate: nobody refers to "Debrett's" when they mean "Burke's", in the same way. Lethiere 11:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The old Almanach

Today, I clarified a few rough sentences in the first section, Old Gotha. As a reader, I am somewhat confused by the intent of this paragraph, as well as by apparently contradictory points. Was it translated from another language?

Here, nobility appears to be used in its broadest sense. Only later in the article does it become clear that the publication's intent was to cover only the highest echelons of what would normally be considered nobility: royal and ducal families. Perhaps a definition is in order, if there is no convenient term of art. The section continues with the point that the fall of royal houses during World War I made it easier to masquerade as a noble. Why would this have been a problem after that war, but not before?

While no facts are in question here, perhaps detailed examples belong farther down the section, as an illustration of a better-stated main point, which seems to be that there was inherently no centralized authority or registry capable of authenticating noble (royal?) titles and descent. Yet the Almanach de Gotha was pretty much exactly such an authority. While not "official" in today's sense, Hansard, Bradshaw, Debrett, and all the others of that era were pretty authoritative.

Also, since the New almanach is suspect, would not Original be a better title?

Although I am not a consistent user of the Almanach, there was an extensive collection at the university I attended. It contained little of the astronomical data I was looking for, but its descriptions and portraits provided many hours of interesting distraction. Monomoit (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not answering, just notifying that I've moved this new section to the bottom where it'll more likely be noticed. Miremare 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Degotha.jpg

Image:Degotha.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not restarted in 1999, other problems

"In 1999 a commercial enterprise decided to renew the publication, touting themselves as the true successors to the reputable almanach. Partly in response to the many European aristocrats who have been trying to regain property sequestered by communist regimes, a new Almanach de Gotha was published in London, with John Kennedy as its editor."

This is factually inaccurate.

The actual rebirth of the AdG has its origins nearly 12 years before, but suffice to say the publishing company was founded in (IIRC) 1997, and I have both 1998 and 1999 editions:

"Thus far, three editions (in 2000, 2001 and 2004) have been published"

Er, untrue, and i think an amazon search for used copies, or reference to Boydell and Brewer, distributor, will confirm this statement as untrue.

The 1998 edition also correctly noted Charlotte Pike as editor, and it was she who initiated the original republishing project, regardless whether she finished the job or not.

"The most accurate version remains however the copies from the German edition of the "Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels" (section "Fürstliche Häuser")"

agh! this is a real problem, AdG is not the GHdA, and though there are many similarities, and many alleged verbatim examples of copyright abuse by the former against the latter (unproven) one cannot possily be a version of the other. GHdA subsituted for the AdG during AdG's non - publication. The GHdA is a good reference, but do not confuse one as a "version" of the other!

One a minor, bit "bias aware" note, it is odd that the phrase "commercial enterprise" in reference to the new publishers appears strangely demeaning - Justus Perthes and all predecessor owners were commercial entities.

Just a few comments on a very heated subject anyone can go check in a few moments. Editors / mods please review these points - it will take you no more than a few moments to verify the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.131.84 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I don't think the article is best served by an image of the new (and obviously rather controversial) version of the AdG, rather an image of an original version would be better as that's what the majority of the article is concerned with. I've moved the image of the 2005 edition back to the section on the relaunched AdG for this reason. Anyone got a pic of an old one? Miremare 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead and criticism of Vol II

This is an article about a book called the Almanach de Gotha. The book has had two publishing runs so what is the issue with saying "Originally published from 1763 to 1944 it returned in 1998". This is what happened. The reviews that are cited both explicitly criticise the one (2001) Volume II edition they do not relate to the Volume I editions. It's an inappropriate and misleading to give this impression unless some more reviews can be found to support the statement. - dwc lr (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, quite clearly, the Sainty review is only about Volume II of the new Gotha. It says nothing about Volume I. -L.Smithfield (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep and the economist review says "....the latest instalment of the Almanach, which purports to document those families that aren’t quite royal but are still pretty grand....." so it's also a review of the same book as Sainty, Volume II (2001), non-sovereign princely and ducal houses. So there's nothing on the Vol I editions in either. - dwc lr (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are completely correct. Both reviews refer to the Volume II edition (the only edition so far for Volume II) of the new Gotha publication. The Economist review came out (24 January 2002) after the release of the Volume II work of the new Gotha publication. I have correspondingly corrected the article to reflect this. Please make other article changes and corrections as appropriate. -L.Smithfield (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have a go changing a few bits such as in the lead, and will see what people think. - dwc lr (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for any clarifications to the article that you may make. The article should indeed be as precise as possible in describing the various publishers, editions, volumes, and any associated criticisms. Thanks for your efforts. -L.Smithfield (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm bewildered by what's going on here. The versions of the Almanach de Gotha published since 1997 are widely regarded as so inferior in accuracy of information, quality of writing, and editorial judgment to the series which ceased publication in 1944 as to altogether lack the reputation and authoritativeness in matters dynastic and noble accumulated by the original over a period of nearly 250 years: Those seeking equivalent but current information would be mistaken to assume that because both bear the name "Almanach de Gotha" that the new approaches the old in terms of reliability. Yet these recent edits tend to minimise this obvious disparity, while maximizing the confusion caused by the shared name. To what end? I don't wish to see the recent versions unduly trashed in the article, nor do I claim that reliable published sources can be cited in the article on the difference between the original and current versions. But the huge discontinuity in quality is widely known and easily verified (I own the 1999 version, and have read most of the 1998 and 2003 versions). And this is quite aside from the notoriously disputed history of acquisition of the name. Better to simply acknowledge that a genealogical work, published by different people than the original, is now in print and, having obtained legal use of the name Almanach de Gotha, offers updates to a fraction of the same material -- taking care not to suggest any continuity in reputation or reliability. Failure to do this will artificially elevate the reputation of the recent AdG at the expense of that of Wikipedia. I can understand why the publisher might wish for that -- indeed, that is presumably why this vin ordinaire is being bottled and marketed under the label of a vintage champagne cuvée de prestige -- but why should we aid in that enterprise of legerdemain? Either we tone down language that suggests more than a shared name, or blunter information about the recent AdG is called for to offset the false impression now given. FactStraight (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The recent edits seem to have better clarified that there is a different publisher for the new AdG from the older AdG. I think that this should indeed be made clear, and the current article seems to make that clear. Maybe it could be made clearer still but it seems pretty clear from the present language in the article already. As to the idea that the new AdG is exceedingly poor as compared with the old AdG, the reviews that are cited in the article so far only pertain to Volume II of the new AdG. If you have (or can find) reviews of Volume I of the new AdG that are negative, then fine; they certainly can be added to the article (along with any positive or neutral reviews that might be found also). Even though you (and other editors) may know that the new AdG is bad as compared with the old one, that should not be added to the article as the policy for Wikipedia is to not add any original content to articles (which a review by an editor would be). Rather reviews from non-editors of the present Wiki-article should be found to substantiate just how bad the new AdG is as compared with the older one. I want to trash the new AdG as much as the next person, but some reviews that do that would be in order rather than editors just offering their own opinions about a current publication. What current language in the present article seems to suggest that it is either soft on the new AdG or that it is confusing the new AdG with the old one? As I stated above, I am certainly in favor of clarifying as best as possible all of these elements (publishers, volumes, editions, and critical reviews) of the material. You stated:
Better to simply acknowledge that a genealogical work, published by different people than the original, is now in print and, having obtained legal use of the name Almanach de Gotha, offers updates to a fraction of the same material -- taking care not to suggest any continuity in reputation or reliability.
I have have no difficulty with language such as you suggest being put into the article. I may have missed something here (quite possible) but it didn't appear to me that anyone was trying to minimize the differences between the old AdG and the new one, or that anyone was trying to go soft on the new AdG. But if we want to trash Volume I of the new AdG (Volume II has already been fairly well trashed by the two reviews cited in the article already), then some additional reviews doing that should be found. Does that seem overly unreasonable? -L.Smithfield (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I have made myself understood. I am not advocating that something be added to the article, but that something be taken out: the new language which refers to the "return" of the Almanach de Gotha, in the form of the "182nd edition" clearly implies greater continuity with the original than the article previously contained. When McFerran and I edited that out, it was re-inserted, indicating that the implied continuity is intentional. That language can simply be omitted, consistent with the points I made above, and consistent with the objections two editors have now made to its inclusion. Confining the reference to criticism to the second volume is okay, for now. FactStraight (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly a degree of continuity which the article does indeed note. Almanach de Gotha ltd published the 182nd edition this is verifiable why should it be omitted? Mcferran left the reference to the 182nd edition in. The "return" explicitly states that it has a different publisher, the context is clear. The numbering of the editions shows there is a degree of continuity. No one is pretending it's published by the same people the article makes this clear, there is no ambiguity. So the article only states continuity where this is the case (numbering of editions). The article also highlights the differences such as the 1998 onwards editions being published in English instead of French. - dwc lr (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
DWC LR, the fact of the matter is that this is not a continuation. It is a different series with the same title covering the same subject matter, although in a poorer quality. That they may have numbered it the 182nd is irrelevant, they could have called it the 1st or the 85786736th if they wanted to. These are not editions of the same series and that you have tried to use the "new Gotha" as a source before is indicative of a POV that does not belong in the article. Charles 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been at least four publishers of the Almanach de Gotha is it then a new series for each publisher. Perthes at one point acquired the publishing rights, Almanach de Gotha ltd acquired the publishing rights from them. I'm not attempting to impose my POV on this article every edit I have made to this article can supported with sources. There is a degree of continuity that I've identified and can easily be verified, the numbering of editions continued as it did through the various publishers, no change there then. There are sources which talk about publication being resumed and the book's reappearance hence the word "return" is used in the lead of the article to describe the event of 1998. What other word could be used "publication resumed" that would imply greater continuity especially if it does not note a change of publisher which the article explicitly does. Should I be concerned considering your opinions on the books. I don't believe I have once commented on the quality I may have cited the book before I may do again in the future. Enjoy your semi retirement. - dwc lr (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Kennedy Gotha has been cited as a reliable source here on Wikipedia? By someone defending these continuity implications? Okay, now I begin to understand. No wonder I was puzzled: I thought this was a discussion among editors, some of whom were aware of its deficiencies, while others may not have read it and therefore thought the criticisms were biased or exaggerated. Sounds instead like the flaws are known, but are being minimised for other reasons. Unfortunate. FactStraight (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes it's unfortunate that you are not assuming good faith. - dwc lr (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I did. That's why I couldn't understand the reverts, confessed myself baffled by them, and asked for a rationale which explained the relevant factors. It wasn't adding up: everything I've been told is about why one may include misleading information, but not why one should. Well, our good faith policy includes a clear caveat about its application here: "...it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." If there is an explanation that is more forthcoming than the ones given heretofore, I'm all ears. FactStraight (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What is this "misleading information" you mention. I assume you are accusing me of adding what you perceive it to be. AdG ltd published the 182nd edition as I have mentioned previously, why should this not be included as this verifiable; I believe you are the only person advocating it's removal. References talk about a reappearance or publication being revived how is it that you believe the word "return" to be unacceptable and should be removed. So in effect you are advocating the removal verifiable information. - dwc lr (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My questions were prompted after having bought and read the Kennedy Gotha: it contains so many factual inaccuracies, such poor editorship, and unsubstantiated editorial judgment that, to the extent it is associated with the original (by the shared name), it does a disservice to the original's reputation for reliability and prudence, while appropriating that reputation to bolster its own. I haven't sought to insert that observation in the article: nonetheless, I understand this talk page to be for discussion and consensus-building among us of what should (and should not) go in the article -- precisely because some of the factors we consider about writing the article should not be stated in the article. But when we discuss content here, of course we are selecting in and selecting out some "verifiable information". The Kennedy Gotha contains several hundred pages of data, but nothing in NPOV says that all or any of it must be included in a Wikipedia article called "Almanach de Gotha": we are not shills for its publisher. After describing the content and history of the original edition (the version which prompted the article), the article could say no more than what I wrote above and fully comply with NPOV, i.e. a genealogical work, published since 1998 by different people than the original, is now in print and, having obtained legal use of the name "Almanach de Gotha", offers updates to a fraction of the same material. I prefer this to what's there now about the post-'97 stuff. Instead of deleting your contributions down to that, I've been trying to understand, to ask questions, to be candid about my own views, and to make suggestions. I haven't accused anyone of anything. But I continue to have questions about the tenor of recent insertions, in response to which I get accusations. I'm perfectly willing to entertain interpretations of what's going on here different from those suggested by Charles (coincidentally, my comments have agreed more, lately, with yours than with his), but he's offered an answer that possibly "explains" the guiding rationale -- why, for instance, I have been told -- apparently with a straight face -- that in its 250 years the original AdG had different editors, so the 1998 AdG's editor can be slid in alongside them -- as if that were the extent of the change in editorial policy and standards which has occurred. May I know why Noel's and my edits were reverted? I've let your last edits stand, but we do seem to be going around in circles: How do you propose that we compromise so that both of our concerns get addressed? FactStraight (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What goes in the article is what can be verified. I have noted a degree of continuity that is supported with references in the article, and that you apparently wish to see completely removed. The language used to describe to the publication of the 182nd (1998) edition is no different to what is used in sources which talk about it's "reappearance" or "publication being revived". I haven't seen any sources describe it as anything else hence 1998 is described as a return, you can use "reappearance" or "publication being revived" if you like. Yes I have seen some editions by AdG ltd, yes I have noticed errors and so on. It seems to upset some people by listing Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia as head of the Imperial House for example, which is where one of my (three) cites from the Almanach de Gotha (webpage in this case) came from after Charles requested a citation for a statement saying the Almanach de Gotha recognised Nicholas Romanov as head of the house. I have seen a comment by William Addams Reitwiesner on the 182nd (1998) edition saying "the genealogies (the only part I would be interested in) appear to be somewhat thorough and for the most part accurate" when I read this it surprised me as I was under the impression the 182nd edition was badly done with many errors. The main contribution by Charles to this discussion has been to lower the tone. He has tried to discredit me, but the reality is that my edits are based on what I find in references nothing else. I did not revert Mcferran but I did make some edits. Everything I have added to the article is verifiable including things you wish to see removed which appear unjustified to me as I haven't seen any sources cited. - dwc lr (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Despite sources using "reappearance", "Publication was revived" and "relaunched" (perhaps they will help you understand why I used the word return, (no Charles not my pov)) to describe the event of 1998 I have discovered a page on the Perthes website regarding the Almanach de Gotha that they do not consider it a continuation and I will change the article now some evidence can be cited. - dwc lr (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No need to be nasty and single people out. Assume good faith. Charles 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite. - dwc lr (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You didn't have to acknowledge finding the Perthes comment, so I thank you, dwc lr, for doing so and making appropriate edits. FactStraight (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The only thing we can say in the article is what we can verify with published sources. So if reviews criticising Volume I editions also can be found then changing the language to a more broad criticism like it originally did, would be justified. Or as L.Smithfield says if we find positive/neutral ones of either volume we can add those as well. I don't believe the article implies continuity in fact it makes clear that different people are publishing and complying it, be it in the lead or the London publication section. The Perthes family published the 181st edition in 1944 before publication was suspended. In 1998 Almanach de Gotha Limited published the 182nd edition, this is the only continuity between the two, the numbering of the editions. - dwc lr (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)