Talk:Leopold Prinz von Bayern

Removed Greek succession

I removed the Greek Succession section. It's probably libel, but more importantly, it is unreferenced. The corresponding text is below:

Leopold is also, according to the provisions of 1843 Greek Constitution, the heir of the deposed King Otto of Greece. Due to the renunciation by his elder first cousin three times removed Ludwig of all his rights to the Greek succession and since the Greek Constitution forbade the sovereign to be ruler of another country (Ludwig became King of Bavaria), Leopold technically succeeded upon his second cousin Fernando's death to the rights of the deposed Otto I, King of Greece. At Leopold's death his rights were inherited by his son Manuel.

It would be nice to bring this back, but it must be properly sourced in order to be re-added.

Minimac (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think it's libel. Technically, he is the current Wittelsbach pretender to the Greek throne however, there are no references stating that. I looked at the Almanach de Gotha of various years and couldn't find a mention of a Wittelsbach family nember claiming the title of King of Greece. As it stands right now, the succession to the Greek throne is most definitely OR. --Kimon^talk 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research: it's neither original nor research, since it was an issue many decades and a century ago. A logic conclusion of succession isn't a research, it's a conclusion. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions based only on your interpretation of data is original research. Your interpretation of logic clearly does not match everyone elses, so please do not mistakenly think that you've come to the right conclusion. As this is clearly a controversial subject and it is in regards to a living person, you're required to provide a source or the information will continue to be removed. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My logic is right, wikirules and you are the ones who aren't. If someone is a descendant of the heir of a State, them he is the heir of that State. Where's the lack of logic? How ignorant are you? How can you challenge the logic of a Philosophy A student? My logic doesn't match anyone else that stupid, that's what it is! Logic is A + B: if a King has no sons, the brothers will succeed, specially if provided by a Constitution. If someone is the descendant of that brother, so he's the heir. No one I know would ever challenge this logic and this claim, no one on this area of history, genealogy and succession, to which you definitely and certainly don't belong to. It's logic based on facts and known elements! How stupid are you to challenge hereditary succession? What's so illogic about the primogeniture succession? It was a rule and a principle. What, is it undefensable?... 194.38.128.26 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What sort of student you are matters zero here. It does not change the fact that you are basing you are adding an assumption without any sort of documentation to back your claim. The Constitution does not speak of Prince Leopold of Bavaria at all, therefore it is not proof. If these are known elements, you should easily be able to find someone else who has written about this and can back this assumption through reliable sources.

The Constitution doesn't have to speak of Prince Leopold of Bavaria!... It only speaks of the line of succession. The rest is just elementary!... 194.38.128.26 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Without any documentation, your arguement and shouting is moot. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the obsession about documentation? Does a Prince need an issued diploma to say he's the heir of a house?... 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Obsession with referencing? They're the rules of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. If you're going to edit Wikipedia further, then I suggest you not only learn the rules of the website you're using, but also adhere to them when other editors tell you that you are not following these rules. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Obsession when you demand documentation, whatever this means on a monarchical succession (a fancy drawned family tree or is the birth certificate enough?...), unnecessarily. Father to son, a nephew when there is no son and when the Constitution itself provided it, as it was. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you fail to read the notice at the top of this very page? I'll quote it in case you missed it. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately,... If you do not have sources to back your "logic", then your logic is useless and will not be added to Wikipedia, especially concerning an article about a living person. These are our rules, if you want to complain that they're obsessive or unnecessary, then you're free to go work on another website, but you will not be allowed to simply ignore them because you want to shout a lot about them. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor, please read the policy of Wikipedia to only publish information that can be verified, especially when dealing with the biographies of living persons. Conclusions that cannot be sourced, regardless of how "self-evident", are considered to be original research and will be deleted. --Kimon^talk 17:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not original research because I didn't discover the Greek Constitution of 1843, it already exists!... It's not a new discovery!... You, on the other hand, take wikirules to extremes. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

British succession

As a practicing Roman Catholic, is he in line for the British throne as claimed in the lead paragraph? Not so sure. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)