Talk:Kigeli V Ndahindurwa

Untitled

Doesn't this page's name kinda interfere with the standard naming for articles on monarchs? -Alex, 74.133.188.197 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

• Has the king been back to Rwanda since 1961?Tommypowell 13:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of fake awards and orders

The section "Awards and non-hereditary orders and titles" is largely rubbish. There are ten "orders" listed. Of those, five have no Wiki associated with them, and a simple Google search (redacting "Kigeli") returns essentially no hits ("Royal Order of Ismail" -- 5 hits, "Cross of São Tomé" -- 5 hits, "Order of the Tunic of Our Lord Jesus" -- 4 hits, "Brotherhood of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Noble City" -- 3 hits, etc.) These are fake "orders", supposedly issued by "royal houses" that haven't existed for decades, if not centuries. This is list-cruft of the first order (no pun intended). Consequently, I'm removing those four nonexistent "orders" and I would like to see primary, reliable, third-party sources for the claims of the other six, or they too will face removal. Bricology (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Kigeli's website as a source

We need to treat Kigeli's website with a deal of caution, and generally not use it as a source (for a whole host of reasons). However, I have used it to confirm that Jean-Baptiste was his baptism name, rather than his birth name. That seems a pretty uncontentious point, and one that's unlikely to have been spun, as well as one that's supported by how his more-written-about elder half-brother's name was handled (born Rudahigwa, became Mutara III Rudahigwa on ascension, took the Christian praenomen Charles Léon Pierre). Bromley86 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Height

Not sure this should be in (although it is in his brothers's article) so I haven't added it. Still, 7'2" is pretty tall. It seems that, even if the Tutsi=tall belief is a myth, the royal family was tall (his maternal grandmother was over 6' tall.[1]

Anyway, support for the 7'2":[2][3] Bromley86 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias

The article suggests that the president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry criticized the King's award of titles in the European style based on a third party source: an Economist article. However, on the Internet there is a primary source account of the president's position, which is that he gave guidance to the king on the manner in which to issue these titles, that he states that 'the King to help His people will do what He considers fit, and to grant these honors is useful to help His people' and he says that he considers the titles issued in the European style 'as awards (political orders) created ex-novo in the exile of the king'. These are direct quotes from the source. [4] Without the addition of these quotes for balance, the article remains biased. So, either these quotes should be added in (which have been removed by Bromley86), or the initial claim that the president criticizes the awards should be removed. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not beat around the bush here. This article is currently massively misreporting the situation ("Essex TV had become the first media organization to be granted permission to film Kigeli during a UK visit", not mentioning the extremely salient fact that he is penniless and living on welfare, etc.). Let's not make it worse by adding in old primary stuff that's superseded by a later secondary source. Bromley86 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is beating about the bush. You avoid actually engaging with the evidence and dismiss it on the basis that some other information is missing from the article. This is an argument for the inclusion of further information, not its removal. You do not address in your remarks at all the specific issue of bias created by the wording: 'Although criticised by the President/Chairman of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry for issuing titles in the European style,[24] (but not for issuing orders considered as awarding systems)'.

Not only is this messy, but also it is problematic, because not only did Pier Felice degli Uberti advise King Kigeli on the formulation of the European titles (the primary evidence you refuse to include confirms this), but he also commented on King Kigeli V's right to issue them to aid his people and also categorised them in terms of status. Your omission of this information creates clear bias, as the existing quote suggests the titles have no legitimacy and that this comment stems from Pier Felici degli Uberti in his capacity as president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry. This is problematic for the reasons given in the source I added and you removed, as Pier Felice Degli Uberti confirms the following in a later post:-

'You are confusing ICOC with my personal advice to the King.

ICOC never dealt with nobiliary titles and this is not its duty, please read

at www.icocregister.org or better:

http://www.icocregister.org/authority.htm

http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm

ICOC studies only chivalric orders, self-styled chivalric orders, award

systems, noble corporations, other nobiliary bodies or ecclesiastical

decorations inside Europe or the European tradition (ie Brazil).

At the moment what is out of the European tradition is not argument of study

of ICOC.'[5]

Basically, what he is saying is that his comments about King Kigeli V's titles remain his personal opinion, not those of the ICOC, as the ICOC's remit is Europe. He further advises that its focus is chivalric orders, not noble titles. Indeed, consulting the principles of the ICOC register confirms that were Africa within the jurisdiction of ICOC, then under its third principle, King Kigeli V's awards would be recognised, based on this wording:

'It is generally admitted by jurists that such ex-sovereigns who have not abdicated have positions different from those of pretenders and that in their lifetime they retain their full rights as “fons honorum” in respect even of those Orders of which they remain Grand Masters which would be classed, otherwise, as State and Merit Orders.'

King Kigeli V was forced off his throne and never abdicated, so in his lifetime - according to ICOC's principles, he retains his full rights as a fons honorum.

I propose the following amendments, which I will make now:

Firstly, an addition to the article: 'Owing to the circumstances created by forced exile, as at September 28th 2013 it was reported that King Kigeli V was living in social housing and was dependent on handouts.[6]'

Secondly, a correction and clarification about Pier Felice degli Uberti, produced in a neutral style.

'Primary evidence from 2007 indicates that Pier Felice degli Uberti, president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry, acting in a private capacity counselled King Kigeli V on a manner of formulating European-styled noble titles, which he acknowledged his right to do and its value in aiding his people.[7] However, later, in 2013 he criticized the issue of these titles.[8] His comments of 2007 make clear that his views are personal and that both noble titles and traditions outside Europe do not fall within the jurisdiction of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry.[9] King Kigeli V meets with the conditions of the third principle of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry, in being an ex-sovereign, who retains their full rights as a fons honorum in their lifetime as they did not abdicate their position.[10] The comments relate only to the issue of European-styled noble titles, not to King Kigeli V's issue of Orders of a Chivalric nature.'

This addresses your comments in full and provides a neutral and complete summary of the position. Whether all this information is relevant in this article is questionable, but - for this article to be neutral - all this information needs to appear, or otherwise the clause Although criticised by the President/Chairman of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry for issuing titles in the European style,[24] (but not for issuing orders considered as awarding systems)' needs to be removed. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, this seems pretty clear to me. We have a current, reliable, secondary source that states an individual's position. We attribute the opinion to the person, not the organisation. It is not necessary for the article to probe further into that.

You're right though, there's too much WP:OR. After the revert, I'll address that. Bromley86 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The most recent edits made and reversions have left the article less accurate than before. It gives the impression of rash edits made in temper and they have in result given the article greater bias. There is no source for the view that King Kigeli V is not recognised by the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry. As my last post stated, the president of this body says that Rwanda is out of its remit. So to say it does not recognise his awards when it would not do so according to its own remit is disingenuous and reveals a deliberate attempt to introduce bias into the article and this does not meet WP:OR requirements, as it constitutes original research.

Also, these references to awards being made in exchange for cash are not born out in the source. The source DOES NOT state that Kigeli 'issues orders and titles of nobility in exchange for money'. It says that they are issued to donors or to people who provide services to him, not purchasers. Even the Economist was careful not to state that the titles were awarded in exchange for cash, even though it mentions cash was paid. You are taking the content to a new level, constituting an issue in terms of WP:OR.

Furthermore the fact that you have no familiarity with (or ready access to) the content of the work, Burke's Peerage's World Order of Knighthood and Merit attests to you lack of specialist knowledge on this particular issue. If you have an axe to grind, this is not the place to perform it. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And yet the article now entirely reflects what a reliable secondary source says. Imagine that. With the sole exception, that I drew attention to, and that I've fact tagged (with the promise I'd remove it if I couldn't find verification) of the suggestion that the ICOC don't recognise the awards. Anyhoo, looks like I'll have trouble finding that, so I'll remove it.

The source quite clearly states that money changes hands; it doesn't mention a single case of an award that was not for money or services. Happy to get a third opinion on that if you want.

As to the personal stuff, meh. Bromley86 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the edits made to the article was that they only presented one side of the argument. The Economist's article gave Kigeli's officer the right to reply, but no balancing statement had been allowed on this article (prior to the most recent edits). I note the most recent edits appear to come from an expert. Yes, it can be argued that this presents a conflict of interest, but this does not mean that a person cannot contribute. There has to be relevance and neutrality to the post. As far as I can see, they have posted policy, which is directly relevant to claims made here and is neutral as it is simply a statement of facts. If a claim is made that titles are issued under certain circumstances (such as simply on the payment of a fee), but in reality a certain process has to occur, the body concerned has a right to explain that process. The press certainly do not always report everything completely or as it really is, yet even they allow a right of reply, as should this article, else it cannot be said to be balanced. In fact, the article now presents a fuller picture for the historical record, as the Economist's claims remain, but they are put into the context of policy, which is there for all to see. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the article is a mess again. Both of you, assuming you are not the same person, need to read WP:RS. WP reflects what reliable, published, secondary sources say, not what those who are involved would like it to say. This is how we determine the weight of a point when considering it for inclusion.

There is no specific right to reply. An editor with such a serious conflict of interest as @Guyepennington:, who is involved in the solicitation of funds for titles (in however a roundabout manner), needs to make use of edit requests on the Talk page, rather than editing the page himself. Especially as he repeatedly breaks the verification in the article by inserting his text in a manner that appears to show that it's supported by the sources, when it in fact is sourced entirely from his personal experience.

Anyway, rather than edit warring, I'll request a third opinion this evening to settle the matter, as we're clearly at an impasse. Bromley86 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

By all means, but I would suggest anyone seeking to edit the article should read Pier Felice degli Uberti, president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry's comments on the character of King Kigeli V appearing in his first post at [11], since this reveals that the King does not deserve to be libelled. It also illustrates why the comments of the president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry cited within this article should not be entirely depended upon, a position further supported by his later post in that thread where he discusses the remit of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry in relation to this issue. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that there is primary evidence that Pier Felice degli Uberti, president of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry, accepted an award from King Kigeli V in the discussion thread[12], where he states:

'Yes you are right but remember I has received a lot of awards during my life

from all the world (the most part coming from States or Statual bodies), but

I never advertised them and now that I am president/chairman of ICOC when I

issue an advice, it is very difficult that I accept an award, but in the

case of King Kigeli I accepted it as a witness of esteem toward the work of

ICOC and because I was aware of the history of the life of the King, and I

talked a lot with him who appeared to me a marvelous person, only interested

in the well of his people, and not in the creation of "chivalric orders" or

"nobiliary titles"'

This is contained in his post, headed I.A.G.I., which commences, 'Yes I agree, I should have liked very much to meet you dear Jerzy after our

discussions by e mails'. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits are supported by references to reliable secondary sources, and WP:RS clearly states when self-published sources are acceptable:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Shortcut: WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources.

The only part of the text involving claims about third parties presents a secondary source where those claims can be substantiated, therefore it is not a breach of these criteria. All others appear met. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There was an edit that claimed cash was paid in consideration. This is libellous and also not reflected in the source, which states: 'The orders and titles of nobility he issues do not have anything as plebeian as a price tag. But the recipients (70-odd so far) are “asked for donations"'. 81.158.102.154 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Heir

Did he have any children or descendant? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)