Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
  1. August 4 – August 10 2006

Contents

Changes

Okay, I've made some changes to the guideline. As I said at the beginning, I knew my American ignorance would make this tough. I never meant this to be a way to restrict articles about members of actual royal families. They are, of course, notable. Hopefully that is more clear now. One section defines royalty, who are automatically notable. A second section outlines the criteria for inclusion of other nobles. The succession order is meant to apply only to those other nobles (not those in the royal family). I've also changed that from 10th to 8th, in keeping with the historical examples given above (now in Archive1). Many thanks to Lethiere for providing those examples and clearing up my mistakes. Kafziel 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also archiving the initial discussions, as the page is 44kb long and there have been significant changes since talk began. I don't believe I am archiving any outstanding questions or concerns, but if so, please feel free to move them back to active discussion. Kafziel 14:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

def to generally

As i have said before, just being born doesnt make you notable so ive changed the word to generally. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You have said that, but it's not really supported by any precedents that I can find. On the contrary, the AfD record for Princess Luisa Maria shows that, in fact, simply being the granddaughter of the King is all the notability one needs. If you can present an example of an article on the grandchild of a monarch (or other members of a royal family as described in that section) being deleted from Wikipedia for lack of notability, I would say your change is fair. If you can't, I think "definitely" is more accurate and informative than "generally". Kafziel 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This isnt about deletions, its about the fact of establishing a 100% factual policy/guideline.. and definitley isnt the word to use. Notability needs to be established, not assumed that because there born from a human being who lives a life of luxury that it automaticly makes them notable. On the contary it does not, celebs have to meet tough notability the same should be said for royalty.
I could bet you that any child of around the age of 7 will have heard of Tom Cruise or Britney Spears, but i bet you they havent heard of Princess Louisa Maria. Simply by the fact that the prior two engage in notable activities and the latter does not. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about deletions, but it isn't about making up policy without any basis, either. Most other notability guidelines use the phrase "definitely notable". "Generally" is extremely vague, and the whole point of a guideline is to clarify a situation. There are very specific family members that can be considered "royal family", and you will find no case in which one of those people has been deemed unworthy of an article. A person who is that closely related to a monarch is definitely notable.
Talking about Tom Cruise or Britney Spears (or any other celebrity) is comparing apples and oranges. They meet the criteria for WP:BIO, so this has nothing to do with them. Recognition by a 7-year-old has never been a criterion for notability. The whole point of this guideline is that royalty can be notable even if they have never done anything. That claim is supported by precedent here at Wikipedia. Your claim that they are not automatically notable has never been supported by any consensus I'm aware of. Kafziel 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So you are telling me the purpose of this is to make every royal notable? I find that absurd because they are blatently and obviously not. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, every royal is already notable. As I said, you will not find any instance of a member of a royal family being denied an article here for lack of notability. That's nothing new. This just makes the reasoning easier to reference. The only new thing here is the set of criteria for allowing other nobles (for example, British nobles who are not related to Queen Elizabeth) the chance to have articles. Wikipedia is not paper, you know. Kafziel 15:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Your being pretty bias, what makes them any more notable then a porn star? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also how are they automaticly notable? They could become notable if they moved down the line or got an article in the press, but being born isnt criteria for notability. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It is in practice, just not in the letter of policy. That's what this is for. Kafziel 15:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Being born is not, and i repeat again not a criteria for notability! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I can see you feel strongly about that. But repeating yourself over and over is not a reason for anyone to accept your statements as fact. You need to have more of a basis in precedent and consensus. Previous decisions on other articles do not support your position, and it seems that everyone else who has posted here disagrees with you. If you have some examples of non-notable members of a royal family, please present them. If not, repeating groundless objections isn't helpful. Kafziel 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Princess Luisa Maria, Archduchess of Austria-Este and Arthur Chatto and Samuel Chatto need o present more? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 15:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess you do need to present more, because none of those have been found to be non-notable or they wouldn't have articles here. Those examples support my position, not yours. Kafziel 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The above articles al assert no notability and thus support my position. They have articles here because no one has botherd to nominate them because tehy assume because they are of royal heritage they are notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about, "no one has bothered to nominate them"? The very first example you offer was nominated for deletion (by you) and the result was keep. Strong consensus held that she was notable. Only one person out of the whole AfD process agreed with you. Kafziel 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I should of made it more clear, i was refering to the Chattos. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess you're free to nominate them for deletion. They look notable to me, though. If consensus is reached that they are not notable, that would support your position. Until then, I'm going to change the wording back to "definitely". It's not going to be an official guideline for a very long time (if ever), so it won't hurt to wait a few days until you have support from the rest of the community. Kafziel 16:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How do they "look" notable when no notability has even been established *laughs*! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You know there is no official policy regarding notability, right? Not even approved guidelines like WP:BIO are official policies. There are exceptions to every guideline, and to me (and many others) royalty is an exception. The articles do assert notability (in that they are great-grandchildren of the Queen Mother). To me, that is notable. Kafziel 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay the, to me its not. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Try having them deleted, then. I don't have any problem with changing the guideline if you can support your position. Kafziel 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I already do, by the fact they dont establish notability, 'nuff said. I consider this case closed and i cant be botherd to debate it any longer (after all; we both know there nn ;-)) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 16:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So you don't actually want to prove that? Okay, works for me. Kafziel 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why do we need a policy on royalty at all? Unlike Bands or Companies, Princesses are unlikely to spam Wikipedia with articles about themselves which can pass WP:V. WilyD 13:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite the opposite. Some people feel that certain nobles are not notable enough for inclusion here (especially, but not exclusively, nobles from non-English speaking countries). The purpose of this guideline is to establish criteria to help keep those articles from being unfairly deleted. See the above discussion for an example. Kafziel 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But have any such articles been subjected to (or deleted via) an AfD listing? Unless that is so than this policy proposal is a solution in search of a problem. People's opinions of notability are not likely to be changed by a wikipedia policy nor are the relevant unless they lead to definative action (such as deletion). Eluchil404 04:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there have been articles like that subjected to AfD. See the above discussion. This isn't about changing people's opinions, but about giving some basis for their "keep" votes. If you look at that AfD, you will see that one delete vote was simply because there was no guideline for this. Another editor suggested making one, and I did. Other people have helped improve it. This isn't just something I created on a whim. Clearly, a number of editors think it's worthwhile. Kafziel 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Two articles currently under AfD discussion:
--Elonka 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders

I agree with the idea that members of currently reigning families should clearly be included. But what about members of formerly reigning families. For one example, there is currently an AfD on Angelica Kreuger, a granddaughter of the last King of Romania. Beyond that, what about pretenders of families that haven't reigned for a long long time? For instance, there are numerous members of the House of Orleans, or what not. Do they count as royalty? Does the head of house count as "King" for the purposes of the rule? Or what? john k 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Angelica Kreuger is not royalty and is hardly notable. Her mother, however, clearly is royal and therefore is more notable. I believe the heads of dynasties are notable by default. Charles 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I basically agree. I was just saying that if we are to have such a policy page as this (I'm not convinced we ought to), it ought to deal with this. john k 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I think it will be much harder to get buy-in for members of dethroned dynasties. WP editors from current republics of past monarchies have already shown a particular resentment and resistance to according their former reigning dynasties "notability" in general, and their former royal titles in particular. Moreover, this would vastly increase the number of entries, because some countries (Germany, Russia, Italy) have had numerous dynasties that long ago reigned over portions of those countries. The fact is, many articles on these families are already on WP, placed by those interested in history, heraldry, genealogy, monarchy, etc. A massive deletion of such articles might ensue if they are ever officially deemed "non-notable". That is an argument for letting sleeping dogs lie. The counter-argument is that republicans and egalitarians on Wiki will always outnumber those that find royalty and nobility intrinsically interesting, and absent any guideline that validates and delimits such entries, once the proliferation of such articles comes to their attention they will eventually start out-voting those that value them, or will adopt a policy to ban or restrict them. On a related note, I've put forth an argument in defense of Angelica Kreuger based not on notability due to monarch kinship (in her case), but on membership in the Line of succession to the British Throne, arguing that the special laws applicable to those in that line make them a rare class of persons, noteworthy for that reason. That list includes a huge chunk of Protestant/Orthodox royalty, some Catholic royalty, and a fair-sized slice of Europe's higher nobility. Lethiere 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't saying any members of dethroned dynasties, but the heads of dethroned dynasties. In terms of legal restrictions, I think it's arguably that anyone affected by the Royal Marriages Act is notable on that basis. That would include most of the people we think of as connected to the British royal family, and the main restriction you talked about on the Kreuger page (having to get the Queen's permission to marry). Kreuger does not fall into that category - her great-great-grandmother Queen Marie was a princess who married a foreigner. She does not have to ask the queen's permission to marry. I'm not sure the Act of Settlement, in and of itself, is sufficient to claim notability. john k 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the resentment of republicans/anit-monarchists from various former kingdoms all but proves the subjects to be non-notable. The fact that people have very strong opinions on such royals contributes to their notability. But this is all my opinion. Charles 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean that it proves them to be notable, I imagine? john k 12:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes :D Charles 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do either of you have anything to say on the discussion below? john k 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobility

I find the rules on nobility a bit odd:

  1. The subject has been discussed, even in a minor way, in multiple, independent, non-trivial published works.
    I don't have a particular problem with this, but it is very broad. john k 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's meant to be broad, to be more inclusive than the standard at WP:BIO. Kafziel 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    I guess, but given Burke's Peerage and Debrett's Peerage, you'll find that anyone who is a male-line relation of a current British peer, no matter how distant, is probably going to qualify for this criteria. john k 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would not vest too much weight in this particular criterion... It forms of the basis for a mess, in my opinion. Charles 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The subject serves in an official capacity within the government, such as an Ambassador or Administrator.
    If they hold a title like Ambassador, or are a member of parliament, or a minister, or some such, they should qualify anyway. But this again seems awfully broad. Being a civil servant and a nobleman shouldn't be enough to qualify. john k 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, they have to be a civil servant and something else. Nobles have to meet at least two of the criteria. Kafziel 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, I missed the "at least two" business. I think someone who is an ambassador should qualify a priori, without having to satisfy any other criteria, whether or not they are a nobleman. I think a mid-level civil servant who happens to be from an aristocratic would not qualify, even if one could also find a reference to them in Burke's Peerage, or what not. john k 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The subject holds a substantive title, such as a Viscount or Archduke, or a courtesy title which is itself well-established and notable, such as Duke of Norfolk or Marquess of Winchester.
    This is incredibly garbled. Duke of Norfolk and Marquess of Winchester are most definitely substantive titles, and the former is also Earl Marshal, an important ceremonial office, and so should qualify anyway. In general, our unwritten rules suggest that being a British peer (i.e. having a substantive title), is sufficient to qualify. I'm not sure about the first part. Every archduke a) does not hold an actual substantive title; and b) is a member of a royal house (specifically, the House of Habsburg-Lorraine), and so presumably is notable on that basis, unless former royal houses were meant to be excluded. Beyond that, this seems to pave the way for including every German freiherr, which is ridiculous. British, French, and Spanish peers ought to qualify a priori, as should members of the higher German nobility (the mediatized houses of the Holy Roman Empire, and perhaps a few heads of more recent houses, like the Fürst von Bismarck, or whatever.) I don't know that much about titles in other European countries, but the higher titled nobility should count wherever. Lower titled nobility should depend on how common titled nobility is - there's a ridiculous amount of titled nobility in Italy and Germany. Untitled nobility, and people who are simply members of a titled noble family, should not get any particular special consideration. john k 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really know what to say to most of this. a)The titles used as examples are on the list of courtesy titles. I'm not an expert on nobility, so I took a couple from there at random. b)I also don't know what "our unwritten rules" are. How would anyone know them, if they are unwritten? All we do here is write. Not a whole lot of winking and whispering going on. Could we maybe use this guideline to write them down where everyone can see them? c)I also don't know why it's "ridiculous" to include German or Italian nobility just because they happen to have a broader definition. Americans don't have any nobility, but I don't think it's ridiculous to have articles about British nobles just because there are (in my view) an awful lot of them. I don't really know what consensus is (if any) about drawing the line for German or Italian nobility, but if some such thing exists I have no problem with changing this to suit. Kafziel 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. A) You have entirely misread List of courtesy titles. Duke of Norfolk is the substantive title. The courtesy titles are written in the other columns - that is to say, the courtesy title of the eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk is "Earl of Arundel and Surrey;" the courtesy title of the son of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey is "Lord Maltravers."
    Thanks for clearing that up. So... are none of the courtesy titles notable? Well, I originally wrote the guideline to say the title had to be substantive. I'll go back to that.
    I think ordinary courtesy titles can be notable. Titles like "Prince of the United Kingdom" or "Infanta of Spain" are not substantive titles, btw, and would perhaps qualify as "courtesy titles" - I'm not really sure exactly how one would categorize them. john k 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    B) Well, it seems unwise for someone unfamiliar with the general way we deal with articles on the peerage(which are elaborated upon at, for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, just not, so far as I am aware, on official pages) to write a policy having largely to do with the way we deal with articles on members of the peerage. Articles on British peerage titles have a format where the name of every holder of the title is linked. We don't have articles on all of them yet, but the idea is that in theory, we might.
    I've been very up front about the fact that I'm not an expert. I don't own this; anyone is free to change it to meet consensus. I still disagree with the notion of unwritten rules. Unwritten rules don't hold any weight on AfD. How is someone who isn't part of the peerage project supposed to know them?
    Has an article on a peer ever been deleted in practice based on AfD? (I'd imagine there've been some speedies). And I don't think everything needs to be explicitly written down. General consensus has been that being a peer makes you notable. Nobody has particularly challenged this. I don't see why we need special guidelines to explicitly say so. john k 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    C) In Britain, only about a thousand people hold peerage titles. There are other members of their families, but they are traditionally considered to be "commoners." In continental countries, everyone who is descended in male line from a count or a prince or whatever bears that title. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who would qualify as nobility on the continent, and tens of thousands of titled nobility. I don't see why they should get any special consideration. I think the holders of higher noble titles in all European countries are probably a priori notable (I would say that probably every duke, even all the devalued Neapolitan or Papal dukes, would count). But I don't think the lower nobility should count unless they fulfill our normal requirements. john k 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    Does changing back to substantive (without courtesy titles) fix this issue?
    Not especially. The distinction, unfortunately, only really makes sense in Britain. In Germany, every descendant of a Duke, or what not, receives the title. Although there's only one who is the Duke, all the others hold titles, and I'm not sure if these should be considered substantive or courtesy. john k 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The subject is a member of one or more national orders, such as the Order of t

he Chrysanthemum or the Order of the Garter.

  1. This should qualify them, regardless of whether or not they are a noble. john k 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should. Does it? I don't see any other guidelines that use that as a criterion for notability. Kafziel 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    Precedent, I think. We have articles on ever current member of the Garter, for instance. I am unaware of any efforts to delete an article on a Knight of the Garter on the basis of notability. Furthermore, this category would seem to overlap entirely with the first one, since every Knight of the Garter (or the Golden Fleece, or whatever) is going to have some reference in print.
    Precedent is the best reason to use this as a qualifier. The fact that we have articles on members doesn't mean this shouldn't be a criterion. In fact, quite the opposite. Consensus has held that those people are notable, so this is a valid qualification and it's about time we wrote it down somewhere.
  1. What I mean, a Knight of the Garter shouldn't have to fulfill one of the other criteria. Being a Garter makes you notable, no matter what else you've done (although usually the person should qualify under WP:BIO, anyway). john k 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. The subject is no further than 8th in the order of succession.
    Order of succession to what? john k 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, not the White House, and not the Papacy, so I'm going to go with "the throne". ;) I assume that you weren't actually confused, and you just don't like the wording there. That can certainly be fixed. Kafziel 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    No, I didn't know what it means, and I still don't. Anyone high in the order of succession to a throne would qualify as royalty. Peter Phillips, for instance, qualifies under the royal criteria, but is not a nobleman at all, by the normal sense (he is a commoner, his father is not a peer, and such like). Most thrones the order of succession will take some time before it exhausts grandchildren of a monarch - the first British person who is not a grandchild of a monarch is the Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones, who is at no. 13, and who, at any rate, has an article, despite not explicitly qualifying under any of the criteria listed here. john k 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    If you're talking about Peter Mark Andrew Phillips, he qualifies under BIO. Charles Armstrong-Jones has an article, but for how long and by what standard? Anyone who wants to delete it wouldn't have much in the way of guidelines to stop him. Anyone who wants to keep it won't have a harder time just because this guideline exists. Look, I have no doubt that people can come up with exceptions to these rules, but that's why they are guidelines, not policy. There are always exceptions.
    They wouldn't have much in way of guidelines to stop them now, but if it were put up, I imagine it would not be voted for deletion. john k 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Best. john k 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto. Kafziel 21:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking again at the royalty criteria, I find them rather unsatisfactory. All cousins of a current monarch are not royalty, nor are all aunts and uncles. The Queen Mother's siblings' children are cousins of the Queen, but are most certainly not members of the royal family.

It seems to me that there are a number of criteria which have generally been treated as de facto automatic notability. British peers have pretty much always been considered automatically notable. So have, I think, comparable members of continental nobility - heads of the princely and greater comital houses in Germany, peers and other high titled nobility of France, peers of Spain - insofar as we have articles on them, which is generally not to a very considerable extent. Members of the major orders of chivalry have also generally been treated as automatically notable, although most are, at any rate, notable on their own merits, in any event. (Looking at the current members of the Garter, for instance, most seem to have some claim to fame - Sir Timothy Colman is very rich, Sir William Gladstone was Chief Scout, Sir Antony Acland was British ambassador to the US, Lord Inge was Chief of the Defense Staff, and so forth - not incredibly important people, but important enough to be notable). Full members of currently reigning royal families, and people who were at one time full members of then-reigning royal families, would also, I think, qualify. Beyond that it gets complicated. Non-royals who are close relations of reigning monarchs tend to get counted as notable without having to actually do very much to establish notability (e.g. Zara Phillips, Lady Sarah Chatto, even Marina Ogilvy, who is only the queen's first cousin, once removed). Beyond that, it gets pretty musty, and I'm not sure there's too much value in devising special rules. john k 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of royalty was largely copied directly from royal family. That definition includes cousins. Another editor added aunts and uncles. If that's a bone of contention, I suppose you guys could discuss it. I think some of your suggestions here are good and could be incorporated. Just because there's room for improvement doesn't mean this is useless. If anything, my confusion on the subject should show you just how useful it is. I might not know a whole lot about this stuff, but people like me chime in on AfDs every day. Wouldn't it be nice to give us some reasons to vote "keep"? Some way to tell the difference between Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Arundel and Surrey? Some way to tell that Archduke so-and-so from Germany is basically a nobody?
If you don't like the standards, let's work on changing them. But this "unwritten rules" stuff is kind of elitist and certainly unhelpful to anyone who wants some guidance in forming an opinion. Kafziel 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The definition of royal family at royal family is awkward, too. Cousins are of course included, but not all cousins. Only cousins on the royal side. The Queen Mother was only royal because she married George VI. Her own relations are thus not royal. Same deal with Princess Di - Lord Spencer is not royal, even if he will eventually be the uncle of a king. This is more a matter of wording than anything.
Beyond that, the "unwritten rules" is not particularly more elitist than anything else. A gradual consensus has developed in the way it's treated on wikipedia. I'm not even sure if it's unwritten, it's probably been written down somewhere. The basic issue is that the criteria for notability have historically been vague. In the topic of royalty, it has generally been applied in a certain way, but not written down anywhere specific. I don't see how that's elitist. At any rate, I see no reason why this subject needs an entire convention unto itself. What there ought to be is a few brief points in WP:BIO saying that with royalty and nobility, people can be notable even if they haven't done anything notable, simply because of who they are (which is, at any event, pretty broadly true. Chelsea Clinton and Jenna Bush are notable, but neither has actually done anything especially notable.) I guess I just don't see why we need a special convention - a slight amendment to WP:BIO seems like it should be sufficient. john k 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think it's as simple as that. BIO is an established guideline, and this isn't a "slight amendment". This is a pretty far-reaching set of exceptions, and it's one not everybody agrees upon. Some Wikipedians don't believe any nobles are especially notable in their own right.
Err...having special guidelines here doesn't solve that problem. If it wouldn't get a consensus on BIO, it's probably pointless. Beyond that, in practice we have tons of articles on people distantly connected to British royalty who do not qualify by normal rules. Some might get deleted at AfD, but most seem not to. It is certainly the case that there is more or less a consensus that actual members of royal families don't get deleted. More distant connections wouldn't actually be affected by your proposed changes, anyway. john k 18:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also important not to make these guidelines follow the British idea of royalty (such as your definition of what a royal family consists of, based on primogeniture, which not every monarchy follows). If other countries have a broader definition, it's not up to us to arbitrarily decide which standards are best and where the cutoff should be. You think Germany's nobility is ridiculous, but they obviously don't. Maybe, though, the best way to deal with this is to divide the guideline into more than just two sections. Maybe it's just overly simplified right now. Kafziel 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Primogeniture? For royalty? Where did I mention that. Peerage titles follow primogeniture. As to making the guidelines follow the British idea of nobility, this is precisely my point. Under the British idea of nobility, every person with a noble title is relatively important. This is not true in Germany. I don't think Germany's system of nobility is ridiculous. I think it's enormous. I think it would be ridiculous to consider a German freiherr as the equivalent of an English baron, even though the titles mean the same thing. They are not equivalent. A German freiherr is not notable simply for being a German freiherr - he has to be notable for some other reason to get an article. An English baron arguably is (certainly he was until 1999, when they stopped being able to sit in the House of Lords). It strikes me that, if you want to write this guideline, you need to get into your head
Get what into my head? Now you're just being rude, and very un-admin-like. Can we keep this civil, please?
You mentioned primogeniture indirectly when you were talking about the definition of a royal family, such as when you said that "only cousins on the royal side" (your emphasis) were included. Not all systems even have a royal "side". Tracing royalty through lineage that way is primogeniture. You can't possibly be telling me that you're working on your European history dissertation and you don't know that the order of succession to the British throne is determined by primogeniture.
I didn't say a German freiherr is the equivalent of an English baron. I just said they can both have articles. Darth Vader and Queen Elizabeth II both have articles, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent. Wikipedia isn't paper. We can accommodate British nobility as well as whatever passes for nobility in other countries. If articles on Germans outnumber the English ten to one, what does that matter? Does it somehow make the British throne less powerful?
What I am saying is that being a German freiherr is not something which makes a person notable, and that, in fact, it adds just about nothing to their notability. Being a German freiherr is like being a member of the english landed gentry - there are huge numbers of them, and they aren't especially significant, just minor landholders. Being a baron was an important thing. Until quite recently, there were only a few hundred barons, at most, and they had a right either to sit in the House of Lords or to elect representative peers (if they had Scottish or Irish titles). The latter are inherently notable, the former just aren't. I don't know how to get this through to you. A German freiherr should get an article if they are significant in the normal way that anybody who is significant should get into wikipedia. No Freiherr is significant simply by virtue of being a Freiherr. Barons, on the other hand, arguably are significant simply by virtue of being a British peer, and as such should get articles. Other countries have nobility that is certainly notable, and should probably follow similar standards. There are several dozen, at least, German mediatized princely and comital families whose heads should perhaps be considered a priori notable in the way that British peers are, and perhaps there are some other notable families that should be considered similarly. The higher French titled nobility (Ducs, Marquises, Comtes) are probably significant enough. Spanish peers, as well. Probably the higher titled nobility of Italy (although there's a huge number of them). The great Polish noble families. But one thing I am absolutely certain of is that being a Freiherr does not confer any claim to notability. john k 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
One way of drawing a line that isn't so arbitrary could just be to apply this guideline only to nobles in countries where their positions have legal status, rather than countries (like Germany) that only retain them for posterity or social standing. That was really the intent of the guideline; the country needs to be an internationally recognized, sovereign, monarchy. The wording ended up being applied to the definition of a royal family, rather than the entire guideline as it should have been. If they don't have a legally recognized title, they need to qualify under BIO. That weeds out all the thousands of minor European nobles, while the more important ones can still qualify under BIO anyway. What do you think? Kafziel 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
German nobles did have legal status before 1918, so just limiting it that way only helps for recent people. But see below for further thought. john k 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As for WP:BIO, I don't mean that this is somehow meant to skirt around consensus (as if that was possible). But it can be more difficult to get consensus to make changes to an established guideline than it is to get consensus to create a separate one, in no small part due to people who feel they own the subject. That's just the way it is. I feel, like you, that consensus supports the inclusion of all royalty and most other nobles. If so, consensus will support this. If you would work on it, rather than just berating me, we might be able to do something with it. Kafziel 12:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how creating an all new guideline is more likely to be successful than adding a new criterion to an old one. I will try to work on amending this. john k 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Some further thoughts, royalty, nobility, and such like

I think what needs to be done is to separate

Here would be my proposal:

  1. Anyone who was, at one point, an actual, official member of an actual ruling family of a country is considered notable. How this "actual, official member" is defined should be set by the country. This would include former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis.
    In Britain, as an example, the official royal family currently comprises the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke of York, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, the Princess Royal, the children of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York (and arguably, of the Earl of Wessex), The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael, and Princess Alexandra. Recently deceased members include Princess Margaret, the Queen Mother, and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.
  2. Pretenders to European thrones are automatically considered notable, as are their consorts and heirs-apparent and presumptive. (This can be extended to other pretenderships if it can be demonstrated that the pretendership is notable - being the genealogical heir of the Mings probably wouldn't qualify you, but if the dynastic claim is meaningful, the holder is too, if that makes any sense)
  3. Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria).
  4. Other close relations of current reigning royal family can be included, I think, based on the criteria you have set for nobility, or if they qualify under WP:BIO.
    Further thought: This might not be sufficient. Looking at the British royal family, fairly distant members get a lot of press coverage. But they might then qualify for WP:BIO under The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. john k 01:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families should only qualify if they qualify under WP:BIO
  6. British Peers and holders of courtesy titles (i.e. heirs apparent), as well as those holding the Scottish substantive title of "Master" or "Mistress" given to heirs are automatically notable, as are their wives (although wives can be included in the article on their husbands if there is very little to add.)
  7. Other relations of British peers only qualify if they qualify under WP:BIO.
  8. The higher titled nobility of other European countries automatically qualifies, but specific definitions of "higher titled nobility" should be left to those familiar with the subject matter. Preferably this should be done in a way analogous to British peers - only the head of house or the one bearing the principal title should qualify.
  9. Lesser members of the continental nobility, and junior members of the greater houses, only qualify if they qualify under WP:BIO.

This would seem more or less sensible to me. What do you think?john k 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This all looks great to me, and you've worded it in a way I couldn't have. It seems fair (not anglocentric) and I think it's in keeping with what I've seen so far in the way of precedence and the general feelings of consensus. I would support a complete rewrite of the guideline in this vein. I think the great thing about this is that it can't possibly hurt an article's chances of inclusion here, because we always have BIO in the background to catch anyone who is notable but otherwise might have fallen through the cracks. Failing BIO, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on anyway. At least with a guideline like this, they have a chance. Great job. Kafziel 05:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. I'd like to hear some other opinions as well, to see if I'm overlooking anything. I asked Lethiere to take a look over here, since he was involved in the previous discussions. Do you know anyone else who might be interested? john k 15:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Using the input from the discussions above, largely the suggestions from john k, I have posted a revised guideline. There are now three sections: members of royal families, higher nobility, and lesser nobility. The new version still allows royalty and most nobility to be automatically notable, while requiring distant relatives and lesser nobles (including those nobles from countries that do not officially recognize their titles) to qualify under WP:BIO. The WP:BIO requirement is already in place, so this guideline doesn't lessen anyone's chances of having an article here; it just excludes certain people from its protection, which was already the case before this guideline was created.

Hopefully this guideline will help educate those of us who don't fully understand the difference between an Earl and an Archduke, and will give us some basis on which to form our positions. I want to thank everyone for their help and encourage further input. Kafziel 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts - I like the new version better than the old, and I think it clarifies and improves things (not surprising since many of the changes resulted from my suggestions). A couple of thoughts/issues/suggestions:

  1. Pretenders to former royal houses are royalty, rather than nobility, and should probably be discussed in the royal section.
    • Done. Kafziel 17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. "Substantive titles" remains vague. To get back to my discussion earlier, I think that the nobility in each country which should be counted as "automatically notable" should be based on an assessment of the status of titles in each individual country. "Substantive titles" seems to be trying to fit everyone into the same box, which seems unwise. A big issue is that we don't have any good articles cataloguing what nobility exactly exists for most European countries. We have it fairly complete for the British peerages. The French peerage is also fairly well covered, although the French peerage is a much smaller and more exclusive group than the British. The German nobility is mostly not covered as noble houses as such, but rather in terms of the former states of the Holy Roman Empire they ruled. The more recent German nobility (created by the various monarchs since the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806), is, I fear, mostly neglected. The Spanish is barely covered at all, and I suspect the same goes for the titled nobility of most other European countries (Russia seems to be worse off than Spain, as is Italy). The Polish nobility is covered fairly well, thanks to our industrious Polish contributors. At any rate, this unevenness makes it somewhat hard to gage exactly how we should treat these different countries, but I do think it's a good idea not to give into the temptation of a single rule for various countries that have very different systems of nobility. In Poland, for instance, the great magnate families generally did not (at least initially) have titles, and only gradually acquired them. Other countries, like Germany and Italy, were title crazy. It seems wrong to treat a great Polish or Hungarian magnate family as though it is not as significant as some petty Italian Conte simply because the Spanish kings and the Pope gave out ridiculous numbers of noble titles in the 16th and 17th centuries, while Polish nobility was largely not based around titles at all. I think we should say something to the effect that the more important nobility in each European country should be considered notable, but that how that is to be defined is, for the moment, left undefined. john k 16:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I took out the bit about substantive titles, so the definition of nobility from country to country is left vague for the time being. Kafziel 17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. We should probably clarify, on nobility, that determination of whether the titles have legal merit is to be based around the time when the individual lived - we should remember that this convention does not apply necessarily only to living individuals, but to people historically.
    • Done. Kafziel 17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks mostly good. I've altered it so that we only note that the higher nobility is automatically notable. What "higher nobility" means precisely can be left to the future. john k 02:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)