Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 48

I noticed an announcement on another WP talk page regarding free access to the American National Biography Online website in conjunction with Library Week. After browsing a handful of entries on that site, I was left with the impression that there's probably a good amount of content scattered throughout biographical articles on Wikipedia which was lifted directly from these entries. Doing this on my phone limits what I can accomplish, so I can't say that I can be of further help before the free access expires in another three days. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am new to Wikipedia, so please be easy on me while I try to learn how this works.

My name is Ryn Climenhaga, and this page is the page of my late grandfather, John Leroy Climenhaga. It has been tagged for clean-up because it reads as an obituary (hard to avoid, when he died several years ago). I would like to enlist the help of some people who can help me track down some up-to-date sources of his work, contributions, and any suggestions you may have as to how to properly edit a Wikipedia page.

You can also email me at rynchilla@gmail.com; I check my email at least once a week. Many thanks!

Thank you for yopur comments re my inclusion of corrections to the Leslie Flint Blog. I wonder if the author knew flint, has read the scientific works behainf his'her assertions, or heard Flints recordings. How much experince of this type of mediumship has the author ?. I speak out after 25 years of research in the field, and against biased reporting. I am quite happy to re write the Flint blog with references and provide corections without the bias.

Dr Malcolm Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.92.6 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oscar Goodman (oncologist) ? I didn't create the article. I suspect the subject may be notable, but I'm not sure. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Do these articles support having a {{notability}} banner? They seem to be WP:1E articles, in my opinion, but a different editor disputed that. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

One important point has been missed in Luis Ponce de Leon's page.

Let me begin by adding a resource document from the archives of Spain:

1: Luis Ponce de Leon was the son of Adelantado, Juan Ponce de Leon:

Resource document:

Archivo: Archivo General de Indias Signatura: INDIFERENTE,419,L.4,F.27R Código de Referencia: ES.41091.AGI/22.15.413//INDIFERENTE,419,L.4,F.27R Titulo Nombre atribuido: Licencia de esclavos Fecha Creación: 1512-09-28 Logroño Signatura Histórico: INDIFERENTE,419,L.4,F.27R Alcance y Contenido: Real Cédula a los oficiales de la Casa de la Contratación para que dejen pasar a Juan Ponce de León o a quien su poder tuviere tres esclavos y tres esclavas cristianos, a La Española para el servicio de un hijo Luis Ponce según tenía licencia. Índices de Descripción: Esclavos Isla de Santo Domingo (República Dominicana y Haití) Notas del Archivero: Descripción elaborada por ARCHIVO GENERAL DE INDIAS

2: Luis Ponce de Leon was a Juez de Residencia. A judge of residence and alive during 1526.

Archivo: Archivo General de Indias Signatura: PATRONATO,16,N.1,R.4 Código de Referencia: ES.41091.AGI/1.16416.2.14.2//PATRONATO,16,N.1,R.4 Titulo Nombre atribuido: Cartas de Hernán Cortés Fecha Creación: 1526 Historia Institucional / Reseña Biográfica: patronato Alcance y Contenido: 1) Carta de Hernán Cortés al Rey Carlos I. Relata su viaje de La Habana a Nueva España pasando por la isla de San Juan, las noticias que recibió en México sobre la llegada a Medellín de Luis Ponce de León, juez de residencia y refiere la llegada a Tehuantepec de una nao de las que llevó Loaysa a Maluco. Temistitán, (Tenochtitlán), 3 de septiembre de 1526. Hay duplicado de esta carta fechado en Temistitán (Tenochtitlán), 11 de septiembre de 1526. 2) Carta de Hernán Cortés a la Audiencia de Santo Domingo en la que da cuenta desde La Habana, de sus operaciones en la provincia de Higueras. La Habana, 13 de mayo de 1526

3: It is always good to have two sources that prove that Luis Ponce de Leon was Juan Ponce de Leon's son:

Archivo: Archivo General de Indias Signatura: INDIFERENTE,420,L.10,F.162V-163V Código de Referencia: ES.41091.AGI/1.16403.15.414//INDIFERENTE,420,L.10,F.162V-163V Real Provisión Fecha Creación: 1525-11-17, (Toledo) - Alcance y Contenido: Real Provisión de D. Carlos y D. Juana haciendo merced del oficio de regidor de la ciudad de Puerto Rico de la isla de San Juan, a Garci Troche vecino de dicha ciudad, con todos sus derechos y prerrogativas y con tal que no sea clerigo de corona por renuncia que hizo en su favor de dicho oficio D. Luis Ponce de León hijo del Adelantado Juan Ponce de León Adelantado Carlos, rey Clérigo de corona Isla de San Juan (Puerto Rico) Juan, reina Mercedes Ponce de León, Juan Ponce de León, Luis Puerto Rico Troche, Garci Notas del Archivero: Descripción elaborada por ARCHIVO GENERAL DE INDIAS Fecha de la Descripción: 2003-03-21

In the document above Luis Ponce de Leon has been named as being the son of Juan Ponce de Leon, discoverer and governor of la Florida. By the way, Luis Ponce de Leon's in law has also been mentioned, Garci Troche who married Luis' sister. The daughter of Juan Ponce de Leon. Refer to my book, Juan Ponce de Leon His New And Revised Genealogy.

4: Hernan Cortez was suspected of killing Luis Ponce de Leon.

Archivo: Archivo General de Indias Signatura: PATRONATO,170,R.29 Código de Referencia: ES.41091.AGI/1.16416.5.10.1//PATRONATO,170,R.29 Titulo Nombre atribuido: Hernán Cortés:muerte de Luis Ponce de León Fecha Creación: 1526 Historia Institucional / Reseña Biográfica: patronato Alcance y Contenido: Probanza y certificaciones de médicos a petición de Hernán Cortés sobre que éste no había dado muerte a Luis Ponce de León, cómo se suponía, sin embargo de que fray Tomás Ortiz persuadía a Cortés no recibiese a Ponce, pues venía como juez de residencia y le cortaría la cabeza.

Here above in this document, Luis did die during the latter half of 1526. Proving the statement made in the article about date of death. Ayes, sic, Proof and certifications of doctors by petition of Hernan Cortez, regarding that he didn't murder Luis Ponce de Leon. A frey Tomas Ortiz tried to persuade Cortez not to receive Ponce who was coming as a Juez de Residencia and he should cut his head off. In any case, Luis Ponce de Leon wasn't coming to Mexico in the position of a governor.

5: The document below list many charges against Hernan Cortez, one of them inform that he was suspected of murdering Luis Ponce de Leon.

Archivo: Archivo General de Indias Signatura: PATRONATO,17,R.24 Código de Referencia: ES.41091.AGI/28.2.14.3//PATRONATO,17,R.24 Titulo Nombre atribuido: Residencia segunda a Hernán Cortés Signatura Histórico: PATRONATO,17,R.24 Historia Institucional / Reseña Biográfica: patronato Alcance y Contenido:

1) En papeles de Justicia 220 a 225, se halla, en seis legajos, la residencia que por segunda Real Cédula despachada en Madrid el 5 de abril de 1528 dirigida a Nuño de Guzmán, presidente de la Audiencia de México y a los licenciados Juan Ortiz de Matienzo y Diego Delgadillo, oidores de la misma, se mandó tomar a Hernán Cortés. Se dio este encargo al presidente y oidores, en virtud de la muerte que en México acaeció al licenciado Luis Ponce de León, quien por Real Cédula dada en Toledo el 4 de noviembre de 1525 fue nombrado para tal comisión.

2) Propuesta de Hernán Cortés a Su Majestad, ofreciéndose ir al descubrimiento del Mar del Sur, a su costa, con armadas completas por primera y segunda vez. Dice que tenía descubiertas algunas tierras y había enviado a Su Majestad oro, plata y otras producciones de aquellas partes. Pide ciertas mercedes para él y sus sucesores, en atención a las grandes utilidades que producirá a Su Majestad dicho descubrimiento. Sin fecha.

3) Relación de los cargos que resultaron en una pesquisa secreta que se hizo en Nueva España por Nuño de Guzmán, Juan Ortiz de Matienzo y el licenciado Delgadillo, presidente y oidores de la Audiencia de Nueva España, remitida a Su Majestad para los fines que convinieran. Está firmada por los tres y por Gregorio de Saldaña, escribano de Su Majestad.

Cargo 1º.- Sobre que Cortés tenía la mayor parte de la tierra y mucho señorío y que en su grandeza parecía un segundo rey. Este cargo está contestado en todas sus partes por los testigos examinados: Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, Gonzalo Mejía, don Cristóbal de Ojeda, Juan de Burgos, Antonio Serrano, Rodrigo de Castañeda y otros.

Cargo 2º.- Sobre que Cortés era señor absoluto de aquella tierra y que tenía todo el oro que apetecía. Así lo afirmaron los testigos: Gonzalo Mejía, el doctor Cristóbal de Ojeda, Juan de Burgos, Antonio Serrano, Rodrigo de Castañeda, Juan de Mansilla, Juan Coronel, Andrés de Monjaraz y García del Pilar.

Cargo 3º.- Sobre que Cortés no tuvo la fidelidad de vida a Su Majestad, cuya proposición aseguran ciertos testigos.

Cargo 4º.- Sobre haber tenido Cortés excesos carnales con muchas mujeres, algunas de ellas sus parientas en 4º grado y también con 3 hijas de Moctezuma. Así se justifica por varias declaraciones de testigos.

Charge 4, Cortez has been accused of carnal relationships with women who were 4th grade relatives as well as three daughters of Moctazuma. Again various witnesses testified against him.

Cargo 5º.- Sobre la muerte que Hernán Cortés dio a su mujer Catalina Juárez. Así se justifica por varias declaraciones de testigos, pues la noche en que murió se acostó buena y sana con su marido, y a la hora y media era ya difunta. Por ciertas señales que se le hallaron en la garganta se creyó que fue ahogada con un cordel, habiéndole quitado unas gargantillas que tenía en el cuello para no impedirle la muerte, las cuales se encontraron derramadas en la cama. Esta Catalina Juárez se quedó en la isla de Santo Domingo o Fernandina al separarse de ella su marido e impulsada de su cariño se fue a Nueva España, donde le sucedió su desgraciada muerte. Fueron testigos Juan de Burgos, Ana Rodríguez, Elvira Fernández, Piolanta Rodríguez (estas tres damas de la difunta), Isidro Moreno (este dice que la muerte acaeció en el año de 1522), Martín de Vera y Francisco de Orduña.

In Charge number 5, Cortez has been accused of murdering his wife, Catalina Juarez. Again various people testify against Cortez.

Cargo 6º.- Sobre la muerte que Cortés dio a Luis Ponce de León. Dicen los testigos, y particularmente, el doctor Cristóbal de Ojeda, que conocieron a Luis Ponce de León, juez de residencia de Nueva España, que habiendo llegado a un pueblo llamado Estepalapa, le tenían dispuesta una gran cena por orden de Cortés, y entre los manjares que se sirvieron a la mesa estaba un plato de requesón o manjar blanco del cual comió el dicho Ponce con algún exceso y a los pocos minutos se puso malo y muy acongojado. Sin embargo, se levantó de la cama y se puso en camino para México: se le aplicaron varias medicinas siendo una de ellas por mano de una india, que le hizo arrojar una cosa ya muy hedionda y podrida; pero a los 17 días murió. Los testigos que deponen sobre una inesperada muerte son: Francisco de Orduña, Lope de Samaniego (quien como testigo ocular relaciona con detalle lo que ocurrió). Estos testigos y otros dicen que Andrés de Tapia fue cómplice en esta muerte.

(Ayes, sic, in the 6th charge against Cortez, he has been accused of killing Luis Ponce de Leon per witnesses that have been named. They said that Cortez poisoned Luis Ponce and that Andres de Tapia was an accomplice. It is interesting to note that Luis Ponce de Leon was not serving as a governor at the time of his death. He was still a Juez de Residencia when he died.) Luis was served food during a dinner and according to witnesses he ate excessively to the point of getting ill within a few minutes. In any case, later, Luis got up from his bed and prepared to leave for Mexico. He was given various medicines by an Indian woman that made him vomit something awful and rotten, Luis Ponce de Leon died 17 days later. Sorry to have to challenge his death by fever. But the archival record tells another story.

Cargo 7º.- Sobre la muerte que se dio a Francisco de Garay. Dicen los testigos que Cortés envió con un paje suyo, un torrezno flamenco, al licenciado Marcos de Aguilar, justicia mayor en México, quien habiendo comido de él se acercó infinito a la muerte, lo que no se verificó por haberle dado a beber aceite, con lo que pudo vomitar mucho.

In charge number 7, Cortez has been accused of murdering Francisco de Garay via one of his pages sent to Garay.

Cargo 8º.- Sobre que al tiempo que quería Cortés enviar a descubrir la especiería, dejó ciertas cosas de Su Majestad abandonadas. El testigo Hernán Pérez de Bocanegra dice que estando gobernando en México, como justicia mayor, Marcos de Aguilar tras la muerte de Luis Ponce de León, sabiendo que un navío que se dirigía hacia la especiería enviado por Su Majestad desde España en conserva de otros navíos de los que iba por capitán general, fray García de Loaysa, llegó al puerto de Tehuantepec, en el Mar del Sur, y por muerte de este capitán en Oaxaca, se intentó nombrar al que declara, lo cual impidió Cortés con su autoridad y poderío. Este testigo detalla las contestaciones que tuvo con Cortés sobre dicha expedición, y los acontecimientos con Alvaro de Saavedra. Marcos Ruiz dice que Juan de Umbría por mandado de Cortés había ido al Mar del Sur, donde cortó dos árboles, diciendo que tomaba posesión de ella en nombre de Su Majestad. Lope de Samaniego, Gonzalo de Salazar y Alonso de Estrada dicen que Cortés tuvo toda la provincia de Michoacán mucho tiempo sin repartir, cuyo delito le reprendieron los oficiales reales, diciéndole repartir a Su Majestad algunas provincias, a lo que Cortés respondió con mucho enojo: 'Si mucha tierra tengo, mucha he menester, que yo lo he ganado, que toda es poca para mí, y en esto no cureis de hallarme que si tierra tengo, poco le costó al Rey, y que de ello informasen a Su Majestad lo que quisieren' Índices de Descripción: Aguilar, Marcos de Burgos, Juan de Castañeda, Rodrigo de Coronel, Juan Cortés, Hernán Cuba, isla de Delgadillo, Diego Estepalapa Estrada, Alonso de Fernández, Elvira Garay, Francisco de, adelantado gobernador de Jamaica Guantepeque, puerto de Guzmán, Nuño de, presidente Audiencia México, gobernador y capitán general Nueva Galicia y Pánuco Juárez, Catalina, mujer de Hernán Cortés Loaisa, García de, fray, general Madrid, documentos fechos en Mansilla, Juan de Mar del Sur Mejía, Gonzalo, regidor de México México México, Audiencia Michoacán Moctezuma, señor de Nueva España Monjaraz, Andrés de Moreno, Isidro Nueva España Oaxaca (México) Oidor de la Audiencia de México Ojeda, Cristóbal de Orduña, Francisco de Ortiz de Matienzo, Juan Pérez de Bocanegra y Córdoba, Hernán Pilar, García del Ponce de León, Luis, licenciado y juez de residencia Rodríguez, Ana Rodríguez, Piolanta Ruiz, Marcos Saavedra, Alvaro de Saavedra, Cerón, Alvaro de Salazar, Gonzalo de Saldaña, Gregorio de, escribano del Rey Samaniego, Lope de Serrano, Antonio Tapia, Andrés de Tehuantepec (México) Toledo (España), documentación hecha en Umbría, Juan de Valle, marqués del Vázquez de Tapia, Bernardino Vera, Martín de Instrumentos de Descripción: Descripción incluida en INVENTARIO DE LA SECCION DE PATRONATO. TOMO I Descripción incluida en INVENTARIO DE LA SECCION DE PATRONATO. TOMO I

Luis Ponce de Leon was the youngest son of Juan Ponce de Leon and Dona Beatriz de Luna y Ponce de Leon.

Children of the aforementioned:

i: Juan Gonzalez Ponce de Leon, born 1481 ii Juana Ponce de Leon born 1475, married, Garci Troche de Olmedo iii Maria Ponce de Leon born 1476, married Gaspar Troche de Olmedo brother of Garci Troche. iv Isabel Ponce de Leon born 1477, married Antonio de la Gama. v Luis Ponce de Leon born 1478. Died 1526 Mexico City.

Another point of note: Another document confirms that Luis Ponce de Leon was the Son of Juan Ponce de Leon:

Archivo: Archivo General de Indias Signatura: INDIFERENTE,419,L.4,F.27R Código de Referencia: ES.41091.AGI/22.15.413//INDIFERENTE,419,L.4,F.27R Titulo Nombre atribuido: Licencia de esclavos Fecha Creación: 1512-09-28 Logroño Signatura Histórico: INDIFERENTE,419,L.4,F.27R Alcance y Contenido: Real Cédula a los oficiales de la Casa de la Contratación para que dejen pasar a Juan Ponce de León o a quien su poder tuviere tres esclavos y tres esclavas cristianos, a La Española para el servicio de un hijo Luis Ponce según tenía licencia. Índices de Descripción: Esclavos Isla de Santo Domingo (República Dominicana y Haití) Notas del Archivero: Descripción elaborada por ARCHIVO GENERAL DE INDIAS

Ayes, sic, Royal decree to the officials of the Casa de la Contratacion, so they can allow passage to Juan Ponce de Leon or whom ever has been given the power, to take six slaves, Christians, three males and three females to Isla Espanola to serve his son, Luis Ponce de Leon who has the license.

I hope this helps to clarify some important points regarding Luis Ponce de Leon. The aforementioned documents are within my book, Juan Ponce de Leon, His New and Revised Genealogy.

By the way, thanks for citing my book within the Wiki Article written about Alonso de Maldonado Diez de Ledesma.

Ayesart (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Ayesart, aka, John J. Browne Ayes.

@Ayesart: Thanks for the notification here, I'd suggest compressing this section, and moving the bulk of the material above to the talk page here, then leaving notice here for editors to come there and look at making such additions - it should really be kept with the article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Afghan_Girl#Requested_move_22_April_2014. Discussion concerns whether the subject of this famous photo should have a biography or not, and what the article should be titled. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a move request at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown in which some project members might be interested. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, I have created an article on a British M.P. and, because I am new to WP, I have put in Articles for Creation. At the moment, there is a backlog of articles, so if anyone here would be kind enough to have a look and possibly review it, that would be greatly appreciated. The article is here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ayscoghe Boucherett. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In the Plaza hotel article, it states that Doris Doscher was the model for the statue but on Audrey Munson's page it says she was the model for the statue. Did both model at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.8.206 (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To the editors of Wikipedia: I have been requested by a Wikipedia editor to confirm that I own the copyright for the photo "James I Ausman, M.D., Ph.D.jpg" uploaded in this entry under my name (James I. Ausman) and I identify that this is a picture of me, that I own the copyright, and that I freely allow the use of this photo in Wikipedia. Any questions, e-mail me at jamesausman@mac.com 98.150.106.1 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia biography of Phillip Deidesheimer states that he was Jewish. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate that. The proof should be identified or the statement should be removed. It was believed he was Jewish because he was born near a village with the same name (Deidesheimer) which had Jewish residents. Mark Stern 173.55.19.9 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've added a ref for his parents, mentioned in an unacknowledged cut & paste from an online encyclopedia. Do you have a source that states that this is a mistake? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an enjoyable read but in nearly every paragraph there's a claim or opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up. Where is it reported that Luke was fired for asking for more money on the building site? It's claimed that Ronnie Drew remarked of Luke that he sang with 'perfect diction' or that he stuck to his political beliefs throughout his life. Where are these claims reported? The pubs charging pay-in at the door during the ballads boom. Where is the reported evidence of this?

They are just three examples of a problem running through the whole article. It just feels like someone GavinPaisley (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)telling a story, with no interest in backing it up with facts. Grand as a yarn but not for Wikipedia where people are looking for factual info. I would advise anyone interested in the life of Luke Kelly to read Des Geraghty's biography. It can be ordered from Dublin City Library, I got it ten years ago.

Per ”Discretionary Sanctions/Current areas of conflict" section which links to all the various active Arbitrations, we are reminded that a past Arbitration imposed Discretionary Sanctions - enforceable by an Administrator - on Articles with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles.

When having problems with BLPs that you have to bring to Biographies noticeboard or Administrators Noticeboard it is important to link to that section of the Discretionary sanctions page so that Administrators will not be so reluctant to enforce sanctions against editors who egregiously or chronically violate WP:BLP policy. I added the link to the Announcements template. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions would be appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

See current proposal to include place of birth and death within the brackets in the opening sentence of biography articles - I find it hard to believe this is what people really want, but certainly more people should participate. Deb (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There’s no nobility in Germany. It’s been abolished in 1918–1920 with monarchy. Former titles have become immutable part of the surname accordingly, e.g. Johann Graf von Blödefeld instead of Graf Johann von Blödefeld or Johann, Graf von Blödefeld or John, Count of Bloedefeld. The only exception being gender adaptation, e.g. Johanna Gräfin von Blödefeld.

When reading German name, however, I stumbled on examples for excessive use of given names in people born long after WW1, e.g. “Johann Friedrich Konrad Carl Eduard Horst Arnold Matthias, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen, Duke of Saxony”. His legal German name, however, is probably … Konrad … Prinz von Sachsen-Meiningen or … Konrad … von Sachsen-Meiningen. His lemma should be Konrad Prinz von Sachsen-Meiningen or Konrad von Sachsen-Meiningen, not Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen since he is not a prince. Names, contemporary ones at least, must not be translated into English.

There are more complicated cases like Ernst August von Hannover who 1. seems to be a heir to the English throne and 2. married Caroline of Monaco and thereby may have (acquired) nobility in a different, aristocrat country (or two of them). — Christoph Päper 11:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, but we are not obliged to title Wikipedia articles with the subject's legal name. No one is denying that the German aristocracy's legal privileges were abolished but they are still free to style themselves by their title even if they are not legally recognized. Seven Letters 19:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The answer I got at WP:NC (royalty and nobility) suggests to “follow the general article titling policy”. I’m not sure what exactly that means, though, because I never edit – save create – articles about people. It could be WP:ON or UCN. If reliable sources – and I’m speculating here, wildly – from the UK tend to use aristocrat titles and such from the US don’t, even WP: is relevant.

That’s saying, you’re right that we don’t always have to choose the legal name as a lemma, but the descendants of such families are not “free to style themselves by their title”; doing so would even be a punishable offense in Austria (but not in Germany) as far as I know, because they just don’t have a title (unlike people from aristocrat countries like the UK). The only source that would apply such outdated titles is the “yellow press”, hardly what I would consider reliable. Anyway, we also don’t always have to choose the name the individual applies to themself.

In conclusion, we should use the lemma as uncontroversial as possible and that is not to include any titles, so I’ll state it more precisely: Konrad von Sachsen-Meiningen is preferable over Konrad Prinz von Sachsen-Meiningen. Comma notation must be reserved for actual nobility. — Christoph Päper 11:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What individual countries do in law is irrelevant here. Many countries don't have a concept of "legal name"; others do but many subject's legal names are utterly obscure. The monarchies & aristocracies in many countries married outside their own borders and have often picked up all manner of hereditary titles in the process; add in the many changes to states over the years and it can become utterly unclear just what titles were and weren't "abolished". It would be particularly ridiculous to title an article on a descendent of a pre WWI German aristocrat by some utterly obscure Belgian/Danish or Spanish title that is never actually used by anyone on any "side" in all this but is the highest undisputed one or have great debates about just where the legal authority went for a state conquered & annexed in 1648 but with what we now call a government in exile fizzling out a decade later. Or the more general one about whether existing titles can actually be "abolished" by a new political regime or whether creations in perpetuity cannot be repealed at all. Then there's the fact that a lot of the aristocracies in question have settled outside the borders of the new republics and some don't actually hold citizenships of the republic (with titles being a particular point of contention); their current home countries take a wild variety of approaches to this for political reasons but really don't go policing what is on an electricity bill or in a Hello! magazine caption. But to pretend that "no titles" is inherently uncontroversial is simply wrong; often the titles are widely used by the sources that discuss the subject in question including the serious press and biographies and the "commoner" names are frequently the creation of hardline republicans and not used by the subjects themselves or by many reliable sources. The point of following the standard naming conventions is to avoid endless and frankly POV debate that often seems to aim more to make a statement than to decide the best way to list and find a subject. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your strawman argument that we shouldn’t use obscure titles unused by the individual (and others). But we also shouldn’t use titles that an individual has no right to use. Yes, titles can be revoked since they can be granted by the same authority or its legal successor. Whether some countries do not enforce legal names is also irrelevant, because all European ones do, of which contemporary Germany and Austria are of particular interest here.

If someone is accepted as the leader of an extended, multinational family (or “house”), they may assume a title within that family, but unless it is recognized elsewhere (law, press, …) it’s irrelevant for Wikipedia, especially for lemmas. Confusion must be avoided and it arises when someone is called the prince (or whatever) of x where x is an existing country or state which is not a kingdom (any more), because readers will assume rights that do not exist.

Legal name and no title are very good general rules that may be broken with good cause, i.e. when it has been shown for any individual article that “the titles are widely used by the sources that discuss the subject in question”. To just include noble titles in all of these cases makes a point in favor of aristocracy. That’s not NPOV. That’s not encyclopedic. That’s not following the standard naming conventions. — Christoph Päper 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all European countries have the legal name concept but it's irrelevant as article titles are not based on legal name or whether or not the republics have the power to abolish the titles (there are many who strongly argue they don't and can only impact the names used within the state itself; a mess best not gone into) but on what is used in reliable sources combined with making any title's use the accurate form. "Rights" to titles are irrelevant and we are not an organ of the German or Austrian states. It is a fact that sources covering the descendants of the abolished monarchies and aristocracies frequently do follow the convention that titles exist in perpetuity (or at least until the line of descent dies out) regardless of what the present state says - the Greek government's issues with "King Constantine II" are amongst the best known and generally ignored by sources around the world. What would not be NPOV is to start arbitarily titling articles on the basis of whether or not someone has a "right" to a particular title. That's making a point in itself. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think i agree with Tim on this. If reliable sources regularly call someone Fred, Prince of Denmark - even if he's not legally the prince of Denmark, then we should title the article in that fashion. We should leave it up to sources to decide whether they will follow self-styled titles or not. No-one gave Lady Gaga the right to call herself a Lady, and I'm quite sure Prince is not really a noble, but we use those titles because that's what RS call those people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The legal name – as it would appear in a passport or birth certificate – is a reliable source, one of many probably, but one after all. I don’t know any European country that doesn’t issue such documents to all of its citizens (be it mandatory or on demand), Germany and Austria certainly do. The legal name, if one exists and is known, is also included in basically every biographic article, often in the lede, see the cited articles about Lady Gaga and Prince for instance. Articles like the one on Konrad von Sachsen-Meiningen do not include it, for no apparent reason.

I assume, of course, that people are not merely noteworthy (and hence get a WP entry) simply because they were born to a (once) noble family. If you don’t believe in that assertion, I can understand where your objection comes from, but cannot share it obviously.

The only thing I’m asking (now) is that we use the legal name for this group of Germans and Austrians unless the (quantitative or qualitative) majority of reliable sources does otherwise. That reversal of the burden of proof is absolutely in compliance with what User:Obiwankenobi or the general article titling policy say. — Christoph Päper 12:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

we should name articles based on WP:AT, not legal name. If the legal name is the same way they are referred to in sources, then we should do this. In other words if sources regularly call this person X, prince of Y - even if they aren't 'legally' a prince, I don't know if that should change how we name them should it? Can you give an example where someone is called prince but reliable sources dont call them this?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just an outside observer on the issue, but there seems to be confusions on legal names and translated names in this debate. "Hirohito, Emperor Showa" is an English translation of "昭和天皇裕仁". The relationship between the two ways to describe the same name is, I think, exactly the same between "Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen" and "Konrad Prinz von Sachsen-Meiningen". The name being spelled in German is a completely separate issue to it being a legal name. Please do not mix them up. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost. “Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen” or “Prince Konrad of Saxe-Meiningen” would be English translations of the titular “Prinz Konrad von Sachsen-Meiningen” or “Konrad, Prinz von Sachsen-Meiningen”, whereas “Konrad Prinz von Sachsen-Meiningen” or “Konrad von Sachsen-Meiningen” would be a name that must not be translated. For some reason, the articles in question (and their lemmas) only use titles, not names although they exist. — Christoph Päper 20:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A "legal name" is not just "whatever is used on certain documents". A "legal name" is the name the relevant law recognises and applies to a person. The concept doesn't really exist in my country where people can use whatever name they like so long as it's not intended to be fraudulent and frequently people have different names on their birth certificates and passports without having undergone any formal process to change their "legal name". If the descendent of a German or Austrian aristocrat is living here and is using their family's title then the only concern of authorities here is whether or not it can be correctly fitted into the pro forma. (And there are massive problems with "legal names" if someone either holds multiple nationalities with conflicting naming laws or if they are not a current citizen of the country or its physical successor from where their title comes from - and historically there have been a lot in exile.)

In terms of noteworthiness whether we like it or not it's a fact that a lot of societies have been hereditary based for a long time and interest in & coverage of the royal families & aristocracies does not magically disappear in a single republican revolution. And that does affect how the sources treat the subjects, often sticking to recognisable titles rather than making up names not used by the subject or having a dubious basis. (Again the battle between the Greek republic and ex-King Constantine/Constantine de Grecia/Constantine Glucksburg is one of the highest profile examples of this mess.) We should stick to the straight forward tests of "What is the subject normally called in reliable sources?" and "Is the subject recognisable from this title?", not start creating an exceptional case based on German and/or Austrian republican POV. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I came across these articles but am not sure if they are genuine. The references look dodgy to me: none are online, most are highly obscure journals, others will likely be pay-for archives.

• Charles W. Chappelle
• Pat H. Chappelle
• Julius Caesar Chappelle

Are these real people, and if so then do they merit biographies on Wikipedia? Sorry to butt in like this, but I don't normally bump into the criteria for biographies. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. I started the article on The Rabbit's Foot Company several years ago, when I had only just begun editing here, and can assure you that Pat H. Chappelle, who founded that company, is certainly real and highly notable. It's gratifying that he now has his own article. I don't know anything about the other two Chappelles, but at first sight they both appear to be notable as well. The editor who has started those articles, User:HACNY, is new and may not yet be fully acquainted with usual practice and conventions here. Particularly, the articles seem highly dependent - some would say over-dependent - on offline rather than online sources. I certainly think we should assume good faith here, and editors should both add whatever online sources can be found, and make sure that the articles align more closely with our style conventions. But, I'm very glad that the articles have been started. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an AfD on whether George Carlin's brother should be deleted due to lack of reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The page Joan Hunter Dunne gives its subject a spurious name: there is no evidence anywhere of her being spelled with the trailing E. Her Guardian newspaper obituary (for example), as well as Betjeman in the famous poem, spell her "Joan Hunter Dunn". The article content is all spelled correctly already.

Correcting this has been an unopposed proposal in the Talk page since 2008. You need more editing privileges than I own to rename the page. Can it be fixed please? 2.25.44.97 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 2.25.51.252 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Adrianne Wadewitz
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1

I've nominated the article Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review.

Discussion is at the peer review subpage, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)