Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)

Wikipedia's three core content policies

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

• As I was reviewing the conversations in archives, the proposed guideline page, and Wikipedia:Notability (people). As I compare everything it seems to me that the requirements of the three core content policies have been over looked here. You have no criteria for verification, no limits on original research and no requirements for a WP:NPOV. If an article meets notability by the currently proposed Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) criteria without meeting these core polices it will still not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus per WP:NPOV. Signed Jeepday 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand your reason for saying this is out of line with policy. A person's status as a noble is certainly verifiable; if it's not, they're not covered in this guideline. Guidelines don't need to establish how to verify claims; that's already covered on other pages. NPOV is a blanket statement that gets thrown around an awful lot, but how does it really apply here? Some countries legally recognize royalty, some don't. It's a clear dividing line created by the nations themselves, not by Wikipedia editors. That's not biased, and it's not original research. There may be valid reasons for not liking this proposal, but as far as I can see there's no conflict with our core policies. Kafziel ^Talk 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not intended to replace any of those three policies. A guideline does not override the core policies, but is intended to be used in conjunction with them. Therefore there is no need to reiterate the core policies in every guideline. -- Necrothesp 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Assume an article appears for "John Smith" who is the son of George Tupou V the king of Tonga a internationally recognized Monarchy. "John Smith" just formed a band out of his garage and one of his follower's has decided that Wikipedia needs an article on him. The king is recognized for fathering illegitimate children [1], and "John Smith" is claimed to be the kings child who was fathered in Switzerland while the king was away in college. Now explain why it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to apply Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) rather then WP:BIO to the article "John Smith". Jeepday 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Jeepday 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is putting forward the claim that he's the king's child? Is he or isn't he?

If a person is verifiably noble, he might be covered here. If it's not verifiable, he's covered by BIO. I don't see what starting a garage band has to do with anything, aside from being some kind of weird straw man, because the only relevant point is whether or not he is verifiably the son of a king. I also don't see how your example has anything to do with the core content policies. Kafziel ^Talk 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - What is the verifiability of nobility in Wikipedia:Notability (royalty)? Is it the same or differnent then WP:BIO The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person & WP:N a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. both of which have explicit verifiability requirements. Notability and verifiability are linked every place in Wikipedia but on this proposed guideline. Are DNA tests required to be documented, is the assertion of relationship enough, what if the relationship is questioned, what is the validation of being noble and how can it be verified? Jeepday 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you have an issue with WP:V, not with this. The verifiability requirements of everything are the same, whether it's WP:BIO, WP:ROYAL, WP:MUSIC, or WP:PORN. If you have a question about how to determine which sources are reliable and which aren't, this isn't the place to clarfiy that. Notability guidelines are just a sort of record of what has already been established time and again at WP:AFD. We're not making up rules here; we're just telling you how Wikipedians have generally dealt with these issues in the past.

This is, for all intents and purposes, for uncontroversial nobility. If there was some kind of real controversy (to continue with your hypothetical example), chances are the person would satisfy WP:BIO anyway. There have been lots of those, and they're notable under WP:BIO whether their claims are true or not. Kafziel ^Talk 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the issue here. I don't think there's any intention to include illegitimate children, particularly, and if that is the implication of the current policy, we should change it. Certainly unrecognized illegitimate children ought not be included. But generally these kind of statuses are certainly verifiable. john k 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy doesn't suggest the inclusion of illegitimate children - it describes official members of current ruling families as inherently notable. "Official" implies those who hold noble or royal titles and/or are part of the line of succession to the throne; neither of these criteria ever applies to an illegitimate child. Illegitimate children of royals would be evaluated for notability according to the normal criteria of WP:BIO. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Harems

While I disagree with the proposal in general, one thing that should be adjusted is the inclusion of great-grandchildren and grandchildren. This could lead to a bunch of useless articles if monarchies with harems are involved. The Behnam 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have examples of this happening? Guidelines aren't supposed to try to cover every possibility you can imagine; they're just supposed to describe consensus that has already been achieved on certain issues. Kafziel ^Talk 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at House of Saud. How many "princes" of the royal blood are there going down several generations with multiple wives? Edison 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

That the heading "Nobility" be changed to "Nobility and Baronetage". - Kittybrewster 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and think we need to go further and assert plainly in the guideline that any British peer, baronet, or knight (including suo jure females) is Notable by definition. (I would argue for wives as well, but am content to leave that for a later discussion!  ;-) ) We are spending too much time arguing about it on various AfDs. Laura1822 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal. Editors should not try to win AFDs by changing the text of a guideline. This proposal flies in the face of the main guideline for notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) which says "All subjects of Wikipedia articles should meet the central notability criterion for inclusion, summarized here: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works which meet the reliable source guidelines in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Having a mere directory listing in a book of peerage is not sufficient. It is also too Brit-centric. Why would the guideline also make every person in the world with a title of honor notable? No one and no thing should get a free ride so they do not have to satisfy the general requirements to demonstrate notability as stated in WP:N. A king or a government can created titles for thousands of people who support them militarily, politically, or financially, but I fail to see how that makes the title automatically notable, and how it makes the title holder, his spouse, and all his descendants notable as well. Baronet says "The practice of awarding baronetcies was introduced by James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds." That does not necessarily imply that every eldest son of an eldest son of that financial supporter is notable. Many nobles have done notable things, and have sources to satisfy WP:N. The ones who have little more than a directory listing should not have individual articles, but could be included in a list of holders of a hereditary office if the office meets the standards of notability. This proposal should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (people), just as the special guideline for politicians is being considered for merger with that guideline. Edison 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that inheriting a title automatically makes someone notable (in the sense we use in Wikipedia) really bothers me. Most of the titles have lost their meaning in these times, and trying to claim notability for merely inheriting or purchasing a title is vanity, mere vanity. No, no, let these so-called nobles and aristocrats do something that gains them notability, and then we can mention their titles, but please, no articles for people who have no other claim to notability. -- Donald Albury 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Titles may be vanity in countries that don't legally recognize them (aristocrats in those countries are not covered in this guideline), but many countries' governments and social orders are based on a rigid system of nobility. It's not up to us—despite our American point of view on titles and royalty— to decide when they've become "mere vanity". Guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. We can only say how things are, not how they should be. Kafziel ^Talk 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that (a) what's really at issue here isn't the set of current peers, but past holders of British titles. And (b) this proposal isn't Brit-centric: rather, it is trying to address an extant anti-British bias that is very clearly put forth above. Notability is ultimately a subjective thing, and Wikipedia overall is supposed to be inclusive. Laura1822 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides which these people were notable by virtue of their title (and/or wealth and influence) as much as by their achievements. - Kittybrewster 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explaion what makes a knighted Brit or other person who held a titles of minor nobility inherently notable? If they were also notable in government or military service, in business, in academia, or in any field of endeavor, then they are notable. But some nobility only are known as a directory listing, with little more known, apparently, than their title and maybe when they lived. Some lacked influence, and were dieased or disabled and did not do much of anything. Some lost their wealth through gambling or misadventure, and your proposal would still keep them with articles. Some such persons apparently accomplished nothing in life other than being fortunately born. "Kentucky Colonel" is an honorary title. Would it make sense to declare they are all inherently notable? "Bush Pioneers" raised money for G.W. Bush's political candidacies, just as 17th century Baronets gave money to Charles I. Would it be proper to declare they are all inherently notable? Is the idea that this, like a map or a gazette, includes every instance of something just for the sake of completeness, even if the entry will likely never be more than a sentence? It seems more sensible to include the members who have enough written about them to create a meaningful article, and for the rest just to perhaps put them in a list. Edison 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is so unusual to be given a knighthood that the distinction in itself necessarily makes the person notable. They are given the notable status by virtue of their achievements in their own field. Confusing arguments relating to a different cultural system does not seem to me helpful. - Kittybrewster 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Edison, you're comparing apples and oranges. The "titles" you're talking about are American. America doesn't legally recognize titles, so they're not covered here. There's no comparison. And besides, a baronet would be part of the lesser nobility section and so would require more than just a title to be notable, even under this guideline. Kafziel ^Talk 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor royals, including Barons, Viscounts etc should not automatically be considered notable just by receiving a title. hey should also satisfy usual criteria for notabilty just like, as one editor put it, "commoners".--Vintagekits 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kitty and Laura- all British peers and baronets and their wifes are automatically notable and entitled to their own Wiki articles. I support this proposal also. Astrotrain 09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless they satisy WP:N and WP:BIO then it is crazy for these people who simply obtain a minor and insignificant title to get automatic notability. --Vintagekits 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm fifteen years late to the party, but was there ever consensus on changing this, or are the guidelines still that if you have a British peerage, you are therefore notable? As there are several dozen living British Lords, Earls and Viscounts who don't have an article despite meeting the criteria. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

At the top of the project page it says that this is a failed proposal. I don't believe that the community as a whole has ever accepted that holding a title of nobility automatically confers notability. Donald Albury 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes - missed that somehow! Thanks Donald. OGBC1992 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Illegitimate children

The discussion further up this talkpage demonstrates that there's some confusion as to the status of illegitimate royal children under this policy. My interpretation is that, as it refers to official members of royal families, this would not include illegitimate children - they would still be evaluated for notability under the normal criteria of WP:BIO, as would those distant relatives of royal families who hold no official title and are not prominent in the line of succession. If no one objects, I will add a couple of sentences to the policy to make this clearer - am I right in thinking I'm allowed to do this, as this page hasn't been adopted as official policy yet? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem

This proposal has been here since last august, and there is still not much of a consensus for it. After all that time, I'd say it's unlikely that it will get consensus ever, and as such the proposal has failed. I'm sure someone will now say "but there is no consensus to reject it!", but I advise that person to read WP:POL - a proposal which lacks consensus either way is still rejected. >Radiant< 10:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there's actually a pretty good consensus for it. Some people disagree on certain specific points (just like every other guideline), but almost everyone seems to agree that the guideline itself is useful and warranted. Kafziel ^Talk 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and looking at this talk page, I'm not the only one. WP:N is sufficient, with WP:BIO where abosolutely necessary. No need for this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Tagged as rejected. Suggest deletion and redirect to prevent confusion. --Kevin Murray 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Radiant and Kevin Murray that there is no consensus to accept this proposal. Stick with WP:N and WP:BIO with perhaps a few lines added to help determine which "nobles" are notable. Edison 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NR" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:NR. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Wikipedia:NR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It Should be resumed

a trash ? VocalIndia (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

???? JoelleJay (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)