501:
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.
417:
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
22:
791:
645:, 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?
500:
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
416:
which says "All subjects of
Knowledge (XXG) 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
311:
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
205:
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
520:
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
292:
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
451:
The idea that inheriting a title automatically makes someone notable (in the sense we use in
Knowledge (XXG)) 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
589:
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
135:
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
Knowledge (XXG)
233:
both of which have explicit verifiability requirements. Notability and verifiability are linked every place in
Knowledge (XXG) 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
463:
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
481:
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
425:
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
510:
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. -
421:. 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.
430:. 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
130:
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
145:
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. --
88:. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Knowledge (XXG) articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.
271:. 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
347:
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.
714:
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.
278:
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
358:
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.
676:
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.
532:
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,
605:
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.
403:
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.
168:. "John Smith" just formed a band out of his garage and one of his follower's has decided that Knowledge (XXG) needs an article on him. The king is recognized for fathering illegitimate children
452:
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. --
637:
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
136:
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.
799:
542:
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.
412:
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,
45:
40:
96:. 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
114:
The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus
231:
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.
641:
members of royal families, this would not include illegitimate children - they would still be evaluated for notability under the normal criteria of
783:
71:
85:
491:
Besides which these people were notable by virtue of their title (and/or wealth and influence) as much as by their achievements. -
216:
176:
109:
81:
399:
I agree, and think we need to go further and assert plainly in the guideline that any British peer, baronet, or knight (including
431:
413:
93:
464:
royalty— to decide when they've become "mere vanity". Guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. We can only say how things
275:. We're not making up rules here; we're just telling you how Wikipedians have generally dealt with these issues in the past.
337:
150:
140:
124:
280:
224:
The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person
654:
559:
then it is crazy for these people who simply obtain a minor and insignificant title to get automatic notability. --
325:
77:
55:
647:
318:
175:
while the king was away in college. Now explain why it would be in Knowledge (XXG)'s best interest to apply
169:
740:
607:
679:
I'm sure someone will now say "but there is no consensus to reject it!", but I advise that person to read
807:
372:. How many "princes" of the royal blood are there going down several generations with multiple wives?
826:
802:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
543:
349:
434:, just as the special guideline for politicians is being considered for merger with that guideline.
841:
763:
Agree with Radiant and Kevin Murray that there is no consensus to accept this proposal. Stick with
616:
591:
112:
criteria without meeting these core polices it will still not be appropriate for Knowledge (XXG).
737:
685:
620:
595:
512:
492:
390:
61:
264:
260:
59:
753:
453:
662:
333:
268:
117:
105:
845:
830:
811:
803:
775:
756:
743:
719:
708:
666:
624:
610:
599:
563:
560:
546:
537:
534:
525:
515:
505:
495:
486:
476:
458:
438:
407:
393:
376:
363:
352:
297:
294:
287:
242:
210:
191:
57:
21:
768:
733:
680:
642:
556:
313:
272:
256:
220:
180:
822:
147:
795:
101:
837:
483:
404:
157:
764:
729:
552:
427:
418:
248:
235:
227:
97:
369:
716:
522:
473:
360:
284:
239:
207:
188:
184:
137:
121:
92:
As I was reviewing the conversations in archives, the proposed guideline page, and
307:
The policy doesn't suggest the inclusion of illegitimate children - it describes
772:
502:
435:
373:
172:
198:
Who is putting forward the claim that he's the king's child? Is he or isn't he?
771:
with perhaps a few lines added to help determine which "nobles" are notable.
800:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Knowledge (XXG):NR
752:
Tagged as rejected. Suggest deletion and redirect to prevent confusion. --
482:
subjective thing, and Knowledge (XXG) overall is supposed to be inclusive.
80:
is one of Knowledge (XXG)'s three core content policies. The other two are
283:, and they're notable under WP:BIO whether their claims are true or not.
171:, and "John Smith" is claimed to be the kings child who was fathered in
165:
790:
422:
389:
That the heading "Nobility" be changed to "Nobility and Baronetage". -
161:
728:
I disagree, and looking at this talk page, I'm not the only one.
683:- a proposal which lacks consensus either way is still rejected.
62:
15:
156:
Assume an article appears for "John Smith" who is the son of
108:. If an article meets notability by the currently proposed
206:
example has anything to do with the core content policies.
794:
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
251:, not with this. The verifiability requirements of
215:Exactly - What is the verifiability of nobility in
521:title to be notable, even under this guideline.
736:where abosolutely necessary. No need for this.
615:Ah yes - missed that somehow! Thanks Donald.
72:Knowledge (XXG)'s three core content policies
8:
234:validation of being noble and how can it be
70:
219:? Is it the same or differnent then
293:statuses are certainly verifiable.
247:It seems like you have an issue with
86:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
7:
312:according to the normal criteria of
217:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (royalty)
177:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (royalty)
110:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (royalty)
82:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
432:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
414:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
94:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
14:
789:
20:
798:. The discussion will occur at
782:"Knowledge (XXG):NR" listed at
183:to the article "John Smith".
1:
776:05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
757:01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
744:16:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
720:15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
709:10:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
667:20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
564:01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
547:09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
538:23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
526:21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
516:21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
506:20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
496:19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
487:17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
477:13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
459:13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
439:18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
408:17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
394:22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
377:22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
364:13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
353:04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
338:20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
187:03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
164:a internationally recognized
78:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
846:17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
831:18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
298:05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
288:05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
243:04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
211:04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
192:03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
151:17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
141:14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
125:14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
255:are the same, whether it's
862:
611:20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
600:09:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
104:and no requirements for a
46:August 10 – August 28 2006
812:21:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
625:08:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
41:August 4 – August 10 2006
784:Redirects for discussion
633:Illegitimate children
817:It Should be resumed
732:is sufficient, with
551:Unless they satisy
796:Knowledge (XXG):NR
684:
664:
335:
102:original research
68:
67:
853:
793:
705:
703:
701:
699:
697:
678:
665:
661:
659:
652:
336:
332:
330:
323:
63:
24:
16:
861:
860:
856:
855:
854:
852:
851:
850:
819:
787:
695:
693:
691:
689:
687:
674:
655:
648:
646:
635:
468:, not how they
387:
345:
326:
319:
317:
201:If a person is
100:, no limits on
75:
64:
58:
29:
12:
11:
5:
859:
857:
849:
848:
818:
815:
786:
780:
779:
778:
760:
759:
749:
748:
747:
746:
738:Angus McLellan
723:
722:
673:
670:
634:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
533:"commoners".--
518:
479:
444:
443:
442:
441:
386:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
344:
341:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
290:
276:
199:
195:
194:
158:George Tupou V
128:
127:
74:
69:
66:
65:
60:
56:
54:
51:
50:
49:
48:
43:
35:
34:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
858:
847:
843:
839:
835:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
816:
814:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
792:
785:
781:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
758:
755:
751:
750:
745:
742:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
724:
721:
718:
713:
712:
711:
710:
707:
706:
682:
671:
669:
668:
663:
660:
658:
653:
651:
644:
640:
632:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
609:
608:Donald Albury
604:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
565:
562:
558:
554:
550:
549:
548:
545:
541:
540:
539:
536:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
519:
517:
514:
513:Kittybrewster
509:
508:
507:
504:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:Kittybrewster
490:
489:
488:
485:
480:
478:
475:
471:
467:
462:
461:
460:
457:
456:
455:Donald Albury
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
440:
437:
433:
429:
424:
420:
415:
411:
410:
409:
406:
402:
398:
397:
396:
395:
392:
391:Kittybrewster
384:
378:
375:
371:
370:House of Saud
367:
366:
365:
362:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
342:
340:
339:
334:
331:
329:
324:
322:
315:
310:
299:
296:
291:
289:
286:
282:
281:lots of those
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
244:
241:
237:
232:
229:
225:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
209:
204:
200:
197:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
154:
153:
152:
149:
143:
142:
139:
134:
126:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
89:
87:
83:
79:
73:
53:
52:
47:
44:
42:
39:
38:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
820:
788:
754:Kevin Murray
686:
675:
656:
649:
638:
636:
588:
469:
465:
454:
400:
388:
346:
327:
320:
308:
306:
252:
230:
223:
202:
179:rather then
160:the king of
144:
132:
129:
113:
98:verification
76:
26:
804:Sangdeboeuf
561:Vintagekits
535:Vintagekits
173:Switzerland
823:VocalIndia
821:a trash ?
590:criteria.
544:Astrotrain
350:The Behnam
253:everything
203:verifiably
148:Necrothesp
838:JoelleJay
484:Laura1822
470:should be
405:Laura1822
120:. Signed
639:official
617:OGBC1992
592:OGBC1992
401:suo jure
385:Proposal
368:Look at
309:official
265:WP:MUSIC
261:WP:ROYAL
236:verified
166:Monarchy
27:Archives
717:Kafziel
672:Problem
523:Kafziel
474:Kafziel
423:Baronet
361:Kafziel
285:Kafziel
269:WP:PORN
240:Jeepday
208:Kafziel
189:Jeepday
185:Jeepday
138:Kafziel
122:Jeepday
118:WP:NPOV
106:WP:NPOV
773:Edison
769:WP:BIO
741:(Talk)
734:WP:BIO
681:WP:POL
643:WP:BIO
557:WP:BIO
503:Edison
436:Edison
374:Edison
343:Harems
314:WP:BIO
295:john k
273:WP:AFD
257:WP:BIO
226:&
221:WP:BIO
181:WP:BIO
836:????
688:: -->
553:WP:N
267:, or
162:Tonga
842:talk
827:talk
808:talk
767:and
765:WP:N
730:WP:N
704:<
621:talk
596:talk
555:and
428:WP:N
419:WP:N
249:WP:V
228:WP:N
116:per
84:and
657:ton
650:Wal
466:are
328:ton
321:Wal
238:?
133:how
844:)
829:)
810:)
623:)
598:)
472:.
316:.
263:,
259:,
840:(
825:(
806:(
702:t
700:n
698:a
696:i
694:d
692:a
690:R
619:(
594:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
