Misplaced Pages

User talk:Counter-revolutionary

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chelsea Tory (talk | contribs) at 13:07, 4 December 2006 (Monday Club). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:07, 4 December 2006 by Chelsea Tory (talk | contribs) (Monday Club)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Advice on royalty pages: Misplaced Pages follows a strict formula for royal pages, in terms of content, layout and naming. The basic rules are:

  • All monarchs and royal families are named using their highest ranking title; for example, King Edward VIII, not the Duke of Windsor.
  • Styles are not used in articles; instead, a style box is always used.
  • The image goes on the top-right hand side of all pages.
  • For past monarchs and their children, the royal house template is used.
  • For current monarchs and their descendants, the royal family template is used.
  • Both templates are never used together.
  • Because many articles are quite small, with the text sometimes smaller than one template, the royal house template for both houses is not used. Instead only the template of the senior parent (ie, whichever was the monarch, not the consort) is used.
  • A royal consort has the template of the royal family they marry into, not of the family they were born into, on their page. However once they die, their birth family template replaces the marital royal family template.

    With thousands of articles on royalty, and hundreds of contributors to them, the same standard format needs to be used across each article. Any inadvertent content, layout or naming that does not match that format is deleted to restore the article to the agreed format. For full details on royal naming rules, see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles).

    Any changes that do not follow the Naming Conventions are automatically reverted on sight. FearÉIREANN\ 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. But so much stuff that broke the MoS and NC rules had been added in that I had to revert to the last page compliant with the MoS and NC. That is standard, unfortunately, when so much POV and MoS-breaking stuff is added. Please do add in information. Just be careful to source it and write it in an NPOV way. WP's job is neither to be pro- or anti- Leka, republicans or monarchists. Edits that appear to push one side fall foul of NPOV. FearÉIREANN\ 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vittorio Emanuele - Crown Prince?

I disagree with how you have interpreted the guidelines above on this page, please see Talk:Vittorio_Emanuele,_Prince_of_Naples and respond there if wish to progress this. Also, I don't know where the guidelines above come from and whether they are valid and binding (as far as any rule or guideline on Misplaced Pages can be binding, that is). --SandyDancer 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you look here...Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles).? You will find it supports what I have said.--Couter-revolutionary 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, those guidelines simply don't support what you have said. Can you actually explain, specifically, how and where the guidelines support your view? --SandyDancer 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Hi I just need your assistance on this issue can you be kind and revert the page content for the principal VE page and revert to the last content ( its because ive done it to many times , you know the 3rr rule , so please move ahead for me) thanks for your assistance --Netquantum 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, would suggest that you shouldn't assist others in violating the 3RR. - Nunh-huh 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • you phoney you are the one who first came in because of someone's request. Sandydancer. this is no violation of wikipedia and has nothing to do with kosher , anyone can vote and call for voters--Netquantum 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"phoney"? See Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks --SandyDancer 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You've mistated the facts. If your advice to Couter-revolutionary is that he re-do your indiscriminate removal of information, that's bad counsel. - Nunh-huh 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • its not bad counsel its just that eventually Counter revolutionary will and is undertsanding that the article was full of false facts and comments. please stop waisting our time with unnessesary comments and atitudes.--Netquantum 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I was away and unable to contribute. I shall read through the rest of the article to see what the problems are, thanks goodness, however, he has now come to realise that VE should actually be referred to as Prince of Naples, or at least I think he has.--Couter-revolutionary 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me be totally clear - I don't agree he should be referred to as that, and you have not advanced any arguments to support your view that he should. I just don't see any point in arguing the point with you anymore on my own, and will wait for someone else to get involved. You are, I think, adopting a deliberate tactic of trying to confuse the issue by misrepresenting what I have written, and pretending to offer explanations for your view when in fact you are doing no such thing (i.e. you keep referring to the guidelines on royal naming conventions as if they support your argument, but refuse to demonstrate that they do, because you know your claim is false). --SandyDancer 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


  • not ist just that now I want to revert the article ( i am not the one to do it because ive done it a lot today and need thrid party opinion) , so what is your opinion and the revert so that we can move on with clear content and not carbidge populist false claims. --Netquantum 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep obsessively (mis)using the word "populist"? You appear to simply want to obscure the issue by constantly referring to the same tired mantra, hoping it will shield the fact you have deleted half of an article to whitewash the past of the subject. --SandyDancer 17:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • please revert the article and bring it back to the clean content . thanks. the point is still the same most of the article is false. so i suggest cleaning. even if this man is unpopular, there is no reason on posting false reports on wikipedia.--Netquantum 17:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't convince me at all. If anything, those articles should be edited to reflect the fact that they aren't Crown Princes because the thrones they are claiming to be Crown Prince in respect of have both been abolished. I note on the Leka article you are one of the main contributors, by the way, so using that as an example is somewhat circular. It runs contrary to common sense and is extremely POV to refer to members of former royal families by titles they would hold but for the abolition. It is as if we are endorsing their claims. If these are merely "courtesy titles", recognised on royal circuits and by die-hard monarchists, they doesn't justify their inclusion when they have zero legal value. --SandyDancer 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Counter-revo. did you see my comments explaining the true historical fact in his Belgian passport it says : HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCIPE DI NAPOLI, DUCHI DI SAVOIA
I simply do not accept that in any country in the world the subject of the article is legally recognised as being royalty. The Belgian Government do not accept that Italy is still a monarchy. No country does. End of story.--SandyDancer 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Counter-revo. do you agree to revert the article to the previous page ...!--Netquantum 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't agree that Vittorio Emanuele should be referred to as "Prince of Naples" as if that is settled fact - it is a nonsense to refer to him as such. However, it is clearly preferable to referring to him as "Crown Prince of Italy", which is considerably more ridiculous. Vittorio Emanuele no longer has any Italian royal or noble titles, as such titles were abolished under the Italian Constitution in 1946. I am just not willing to argue the point any more as another user has pointed out that doing so is an uphill struggle, and not one I am currently interested in undertaking. --SandyDancer 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are aware that User:Netquantum is stating that you agree with his deletion of sourced and unbiased material from the Vittorio Emanuele article. I cannot imagine you do in fact agree with this - your edits to the article were largely to do with naming conventions, but he is involving you in the broader dispute about whether the "controversies" section of the article should be blanked / NPOV tag placed on the article. --SandyDancer 12:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

House of Savoy Referrendum

Worth pointing out that the institution of monarchy was abolished in Italy by a parliament packed with communists. Also worth pointing out that it is the prerogative of the monarch, whether in situ or in exile, to bestow whatever titles he wishes, something which has always been his gift and has nothing whatsoever to do with parliaments. 213.122.40.214 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid you've got me mixed up with someone else as I absoulutely agree with you 100%. I also believe a Monarch's right to give honours (whether on the throne or not) is a natural and inate right, which cannot be taken away. I hope this puts your mind to rest; I am a monarchist.--Couter-revolutionary 14:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
"Worth pointing out that the institution of monarchy was abolished in Italy by a parliament packed with communists" - no, it was abolished following a referendum, and the reasons why the people made the choice were clear.
  • Rigged referrendum with massive irregularities especially in places like Bologna. But in any case it was the parliament who actually abolished the monarchy by Statute. A referrendum alone cannot abolish anything. Read Robert Gayre's book: A Case for Monarchy. Gayre was the Allies' Education Minister during the occupation and was there during the 'referrendum'. In any case I don't think it can be disputed that almost one third of the Italian electorate voted communist after the war. As communists do not believe in democracy should we accept their therefore tarnished vote? (See also: Daniele Varé, Twilight of the Kings, London, 1948, "The Fall of the Monarchy in Italy" pps: 140 - 149).213.122.26.72 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"I also believe a Monarch's right to give honours (whether on the throne or not) is a natural and inate right, which cannot be taken away". Only makes any sense if, as you say you are, one is a Monarchist. Even if you are a monarchist, don't you draw distinctions between monarchies like Italy's that only emerged in the modern world as an expedient on the whim of politicians, and those that have endured for centuries (like Britain's, Japan's and some others) and acquired a legitimacy through longevity and the the evolution of a constitution around the institution of monarchy?
I am interested in your responses. I am certainly not being rude so please don't respond as if I am! --SandyDancer 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The House of Savoy could hardly be called a Royal House which emerged only in the modern world. You are confusing the House with the unification of Italy. There have been numerous Royal occasions at Westminster Abbey where the programmes referred to the special guests who would be in attendance as: King Michael of Romania, King Umberto of Italy, etc. Monarchs who are forced to abdicate or flee their countries are not regarded in a great many circles (especially our Royal Family) as anything other than the legitimate sovereigns-in-exile. (See also: Charles Fenyvesi, Royalty in Exile, London, 1981). 213.122.26.72 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. Yes I quite agree with you. I shall look up some of those books, although I believe I have already read/ encountered a few. It's good to know there are some other sane people using Misplaced Pages. --Couter-revolutionary 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. No, I don't actually draw distinctions between monarchies which are ancient and those which are not. For a start the Savoys were royalty anyway who were elevated to Kings of a unified Italy, the country had not previously existed. This is similar to what happened in Germany and I definitely support their royal family who were the ancient Kings of Prussia. As well as this I also agree with the founding of the Albanian Monarchy and the House of Zogu, as, if one knows about King Zog's life, there were a lot of occurances, which, I believe paved the way for his rightful place as King of Albania. King Zog was, however, also descended from an ancient aristocreatic family and the legendary King, Skandebeg. Hope this helps.--Couter-revolutionary 11:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You talk about occurences having "paved the way for rightful place as King of Albania". What kind of occurences could these be?
I take your point about the Savoys and the Hohenzollern's gaining legitmacy from having been a reigning royal family of a monarchy which became a constituent part of a larger one.
What I don't understand is how you can claim that monarchs per se, even when deposed by Parliaments or the people in a referendum, can still claim legitimacy and royal status, especially as you seem to be saying that this is the case irrespective of the monarchy in question's history of how they came to power? If monarchies are so easy to make, why can they not be unmade? What special event happens when someone declares themself, or is declared, a monarch which means they can never be removed? What happens when succession rules change by act of a legislature, meaning the person who is next in line to the throne no longer accedes in favour of someone else? Is the new monarch illegitimate, or does the act of the legislature which changed the line of succession make it legitimate? If the latter, how come it is OK for a legislature to change the line of succession or some other basic characteristic of a monarchy but not OK for a monarchy to be abolished in the same way? --SandyDancer 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
  • There are extremely few monarchies in the past 1000 years which have been established by parliaments or the masses, who owe their allegience to their monarch, and not visa versa. Therefore any act against their monarch is essentially treason. 213.122.26.72 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well in King Zog's case there were many factors. I believe his family history had been building up to his being crowned King, there was a prophecy at his birth fortelling him as the "Star of Mati", he had lead his troops into battle and been democratically elected. I believe that there is a certain amount of power needed to found a monarchy which is more transcendant than what we are used to in this world, I appreciate you may find that odd, and it probably sounds odder than I mean it too. These people, Kings of Men, do posess qualities other's don't, Zog certainly did. There is a very good biography of Queen Geraldine, Zog's consort, which goes into this better than I could, (by Gwen Robyns: Geraldine of the Albanians, London, 1987. See also: Ferdinand Schevill: A History of the Balkans, 1922.) There are some monarchies I do not believe fulfilled the "criteria for establishment", for instance I do not recognise Bokassa of the Central African Empire! I hope this explains what I mean, although it is hard to put it into words! Essentially it's a gut feeling that the throne belongs to a Monarch as a birth right...--Couter-revolutionary 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say that your belief in the innate legitimacy of some monarchies (but not all, e.g. Bokassa) stems from a religious or quasi-religious belief? The reason I ask is that it does not appear to stem from any conventional jurisprudential theories. --SandyDancer 15:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that could be said to be true to a certain extent, although of course some form of legality is required, hence the need for coronations &c. One must remember also that even Zog was brought into power on a wave of popular thought!--Couter-revolutionary 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are a great many books on monarchy, conventional and otherwise. Try, for instance, The Divine Right of Kings by John Neville Figgis, Cambridge University Press, 1st edition 1896, 2nd edition, 1914, reprint 1922. 213.122.26.72 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, hope you are well, can you look in this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/Enviga and give me push because Petegranger seems to be working for this product or new on Misplaced Pages, the only thing he has ever edited so far is Enviga...--Netquantum 11:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

BRoy Style Guide

I've just created a proposal for our Style Guide - HERE - please do discuss it on the talk page // DBD 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC) 

Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone left a message on my talk page saying everything is all right now with the article. Can you confirm that on my talk page so I can take the appropriate actions? Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stronge Baronets

Good set of articles. Well done. Not sure about "one of Ulsters oldest baronetcies" - see Baronetcies of Ireland and Great Britain, neither of which specify Ulster or Ireland though. Please add one source and delete the unreferenced template. Please can you also create an article to complete each red-link. - Kittybrewster 08:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a whole forest of articles should be created. Certainly this two men are notable enough for articles, but lets not go wild and create a load of articles that will be very low on content and remain forever stubs - they will simply be deleted. --SandyDancer 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Righto, although most were notable, see what you think about them...--Couter-revolutionary 10:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me you are creating completely empty articles about an entire dynasty of little known aristocrats. Just because some of the ancestors of the Stronges were baronets, doesn't make them notable. Surely you could just list them in your article about the Stronge family rather than creating all these stubs? --SandyDancer 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, yes. Although I don't see what harm having an article each has, especially as I hope to expand them. One must admit they are fairly notable! Could I simply copy and paste each of their stubs into the main Stronge Family page below their name then? --Couter-revolutionary 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you assert they are notable? The baronetcy they each held might well be notable, but that doesn't mean each holder deserves an article. --SandyDancer 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Because each held positions such as Lord Lieutenant, High Sheriff, Justice of the Peace and, not to mention, Member of Parliament. I think these are notable, don't you? Although I do see your point in simply making the Stronge Family article bigger.--Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. I agree those positions make the people notable, and that perhaps you need time to make the articles provide full details. These things take a while. If each of the people you are creating articles about held titles such as those you list above, then I can't see any reason why the articles won't be worthwhile. --SandyDancer 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, having seen the Stronge Baronets article, I was just looking in Burke's Peerage to check the blazon for the coat of arms. I notice that the picture of the arms in the article, Image:Random_003.jpg, looks identical to the one in Burke's. I also notice that the summary on the Image page says only that you photographed it yourself. Might I ask from where you photographed it? I believe copyright in an image lasts until 70 years after the artist's death (or possibly 70 years after first publication), so the image may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's copyright requirements. (I don't think photographing a two dimensional work generates any new copyright.) Dr pda 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than have no image, you might ask Orror to create an image for the article. - Kittybrewster 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in copyright either :) Most of my knowledge comes from trying to work out which image tag to use when I want to upload something (and in general to avoid complications, I only upload images I have created myself or are sufficiently old that they are definitely public domain) There's a few pages dealing with copyright for images used on Misplaced Pages - eg Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags. Regarding coats of arms one has to distinguish between the ownership of/copyright in the arms (as defined by the blazon, or written description) and the copyright in the depiction of the arms (in principle there are an infinite number of ways of illustrating the arms described by a given blazon). It is the second which is most relevant for Misplaced Pages. It is not possible to claim fair use, since a free alternative is in principle available (if one is artistically talented one can draw the coat of arms from the blazon). You might like to have a look at the discussion here about inclusion of images, and also at the tag {{coatofarms}}. There is a project (fr:Projet:Blasons) over at the French wikipedia for making wikipedia-usable images of coats of arms, as a result of which there are lots of heraldic charges etc over at Commons. Finally there are a few flow charts here regarding when images etc become public domain in the UK. Hope this is of some use. The reason I brought up the copyright in the first place is that from what I've read on various pages, the number of non-free images which are uploaded is a major issue (plus if you want to get the article to FA-status, image copyright is one of the main things people jump on after inline citations :) ). Dr pda 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tfoxworth

I'm writing him up for 3RR right now. I'll post the link on your page when it is done. I've also notified an administrator. Charles 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this link works: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Tfoxworth_reported_by_User:Cfvh_.28Result:.29. Charles 21:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
He received a 24H block. When he returns, exercise caution in reverting. Apparently, even restoring proper material too often can result in a block for well-meaning editors. Charles 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarawak

The article Anthony Walter Dayrell Brooke does not qualify for the 3RR as there are no intermediate edits by another person... A person editing immediately after they have edited are not guilty of the 3RR, unfortunately. If a person reverts 4 time in exactly 24 hours or less, he or she will be banned if you write them up so long as you are not guilty of the same. Charles 17:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added several of the pages to my watchlist to keep an eye on them. At least one of the editors I recognize as someone with the desire to "republicanize" varying members of deposed/former royal families. Charles 17:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

St. John Philby

Greetings. Regarding your comment that pronouncing "St. John" as "Sinjin" is obvious, I disagree. I must assure you although it may be obvious in the UK and in many Commonwealth countries, it would definitely not be obvious to perhaps 99% of people in the USA (that’s about 300 million people) nor to millions of other people around the world for whom English is a non-Native language. If Philby was more typically addressed as "St. John Philby" than "Harry Philby", I think we should reinsert that pronunciation note. I hope you agree. Thanks. ◄HouseOfScandal► 18:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantine

He is not King of the Hellenes and does not call himself King of the Hellenes. I agree that once he is dead the article should revert to his regnal title, but while he is alive he should be called by the name by which he is most commonly known and which he uses himself, which (in English) is Constantine of Greece. Adam 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, however, Misplaced Pages guidelines on this issue should be examined.--Couter-revolutionary 23:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages guidelines also say that living people should be called by the best-known form of their names. It is not uncommon for Misplaced Pages guidelines to contradict each other. In this case I think "most common form" should prevail. Adam 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is King of Greece most common? I know him as King of the Hellenes? --Couter-revolutionary 09:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
How well do you know him? Sup in the same pubs?
"Alright, King of the Hellenes? How you doing mate?"
"King of the Hellenes, its your round, son."
"Yeah it was a wicked night, me, Bazza, Micky, Dave and King of the Hellenes...we had a blast."
????? --SandyDancer 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is none of your business how I know him. --Couter-revolutionary 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
:-) --SandyDancer 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cullen-Ward

You're tugging your forelock a bit too much. Landowner is a five-dollar word for a farmer or rancher. They raise sheep for heavens sake. Farmer is not a dirty word, as they range from dirt poor to ultra rich; I know more than one English duke who right describes himself as a farmer. Just because someone is listed in Burke's Colonial Gentry doesn't mean he or she isn't a farmer.Mowens35 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly - the aristos I knew at uni invariably described their dads as "farmers". Farmer is indeed not a dirty word - it is a badge of pride. Landowner implies someone who spends most his time in town and simply collects rents from an estate somewhere. --SandyDancer 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I know, please don't mistake what I did for ignorance; you have no idea who I am. The reason I did it was because I considered it gave a more accurate representation of the amount of land &c. they own out in Australia. --Couter-revolutionary 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) PS, I am happy with the edit as it now rests.
"you have no idea who I am"? Is that intentionally hilarious? --SandyDancer 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it was not. Please do stop harassing me, it does become tiresome; and I ask that you might remove the last comment you made. It adds nothing to anything. You have no need to reply to this other than to do as I ask, if you so wish.--Couter-revolutionary 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Leka, "incorrect"

leave it, it is a mistake, though he really wasn't king of anything at any timeMowens35 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Righto, I've explained it on the Talk page anyway.--Couter-revolutionary 00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fish

Your fish.

Hello. In execution of the consensus decision at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St Andrews University Scottish Nationalist Association, you're hereby presented with a fish. I hope to have been of service. Best, Sandstein 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Monday Club

Thanks for your efforts (however futile) on the Conservative Monday Club page. I see it has been "sorted" by The Left. It is sad that these people control Misplaced Pages and are reducing everything to Guardian rhetoric. I do wonder if they've ever looked at an encyclopaedia. Chelsea Tory 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)