This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil
Was patrolling this article and couldn't really verify much in this outside of references to books that I cannot access. One of the family, Peter Daniell, has written a book on the family history, but that might not be independent. Was wondering if the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility had any view on it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that unless the connection has a special significance (such as an inheritance that went direct from person to great-grandson in the case of Louis XIV), such remote connections are not important enough to feature in the lead. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there are some discrepancies with using old/new calendar for the Russian royalty/nobility (example Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia, where the birth/death date in the infobox were mixed: birth date > OLD calendar and death date > NEW calendar, it's now correct). What is the standard for this? I've been looking for a while but couldn't find any rule, if anyone could be nice to redirect me, I'd be happy to re-edit. Thanks Daphoenyx (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would be excellent to have more voices in this discussion about the best way to avoid WP:FRINGE content concerning people who are not royalty (despite being descendants of people who were), while also respecting other core policies. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unassessed biography (royalty) articles
Would it be posible to rename this category to include (royalty and nobility) seeing as it belongs to this WikiProject? As it is, the names of these articles only include british peers and royalty. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any Holy Roman / Frederick Barbarossa fans around?
The question of whether any of these people wrote their name with the ł instead of a standard English l is also maybe interesting. (It is not necessary to point out that my edit summaries are not entirely civil, nor that I have now reverted twice; I'm not planning on directly engaging further.) Pinging Unfriendnow (the other involved editor). Thanks. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is almost entirely concerned with people and events of the 16th through 18th centuries (maybe a bit earlier). Our article Stanisław_Albrecht_Radziwiłł#Title (one of the ones Unfriendnow has been trying to pipe to add the word “Prince” instead of linking the article directly) says this: According to Debrett's, although known as Prince Radziwiłł in Britain, on becoming a British subject and in keeping with standard practice, Radziwiłł strictly needed permission from Queen Elizabeth II to use his princely title. The Radziwiłł family held the title Prince of the Holy Roman Empire since the early 16th century. However, noble titles were abolished in Poland and Austria. The other people are the American woman he was married to from 1959 to 1974, their son (b Switzerland 1959), and his wife (b USA 1963, m 1994). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Angevin kings of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mashiding Lomandong
Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Mashiding Lomandong and assess it per WP:BIO? Most of the sources cited in the article are to Facebook posts, and the creator might have a WP:COI. If, however, the subject is notable, those things could possibly be cleaned up or better sources could be found. I'm not sure whether this article would fall within the scope of this project, but the article claims this person is a "sultan" so perhaps it might. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this person was actually a count, and if so, that he was notable. Please find sources. Ping me if you need any help. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard here regarding Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII. In July he had a BLP that was deleted. That was actually the second creation of the article (at least), but because the original editor of the latest article used a different title, it looked like it was the first. The first AfD has been blanked as a courtesy. I've opened the discusssion to see if those article titles can be salted. Just an FYI if you want to participate. --19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Gym Samba (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?
Asking because I'm looking at several articles about noble families, which often have poor sourcing, such as WP:SELFPUB blogs or WP:USERGENERATED websites which reject all responsibility for accuracy of information, while other websites appear to be quite reliable and useful for us. It probably won't be worth it to take every single case to WP:RSP, because writing about noble families is usually limited to this WikiProject. So, have we got a list of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research? If so, where can I see it? If not, should we make one? It makes checking the quality of sources for a large set of articles a lot easier. NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm gonna start building up these lists until I get a response, or find lists if there are any. I'll go through both the archives of the Reliable Source Noticeboard and the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility for the term "genealogical websites" and variations thereof. Once we have lists of reliable and unreliable websites, we no longer need to reinvent the wheel by assessing whether source A is reliable for article B, but whether source A can be used on enwiki at all, and if so, to be used in multiple other articles that could use some improvements, or if not, require a purge. This may start off as mostly a note-to-self, but this is relevant for everyone working in this content area, and some previous decisions and assessments already apply right now, and have already been implemented over the years, particularly those of WP:RSP. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websitesAfter over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. Closing per request at WP:AN/I. – Quadell (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC) See WP:BLPSPS (biographies of living people - self-published sources). Examples mentioned were:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) was deprecated 1.5 year ago upon my inquiry. It was used in 500+ articles, where we purged it from. This might merit a follow-up for other unreliable genealogical websites which are still currently used as sources in noble families articles. In some cases, removing these unreliable websites will show that the rest of the articles is not really based on anything reliable, and may not pass WP:GNG either. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov for a current example of this. In other cases, we can probably improve articles up to current standards by using reliable websites for multiple articles. So having lists of reliable and unreliable genealogical websites can work well both ways. NLeeuw (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been through the articles that use "Marek, Miroslav. "A listing of the House of Orléans". Genealogy.EU. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" as a cited source marking them in a similar way. The problem with that source is that Marek does not cite his sources. PBS (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
...1,132 pages link to genealogy.euweb.cz The first page returned is List of princes of Austria-Hungary 21 out of 28 citations (and another page or which I ran AWB), in this case I don't think Miroslav Marek cites any sources. You see the problem is lots of people like to create ancestry trees and articles about nobility the content of which is mainly about who married whom (dynastic pedigree was and probably is still important and if often helps to explain otherwise odd political behaviour, both at the local as well as the national level -- so it can't be dismissed as totally trivial), and it is easy to do if you use this sort of site. Deleting them is impractical at a Wikipedia political level (apart from anything else if one try it one will be accused of being anti-feminist as in prior centuries European female aristocracy are only notable by who they married and as baby machines, so deleting information in Wikipedia articles from these sites affects articles on females more than males).... PBS (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (I gotta say that I partially agree with PBS; we do need better representation of women and women's history; I'm a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red member myself. On the other hand, "no information is better than false information"; that's a rule somewhere as well, right? NLeeuw (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V? PBS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There are far too many of these genealogical websites being using in articles. It seems that biographies historical minor nobles of European Continental countries are particularly susceptible to having citations linked to these types of sites. [mentions http://genealogy.euweb.cz as one of them] PBS (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
there is a far larger problem with the use of sites that do not cite their sources -- neither of you addressed my question about insource:/Rayment/ (used in 11,273 articles) -- there are others, most of them are used as citations to support little known (to English readers) continental European nobility eg insource:/roglo.eu/ (88); insource:/genealogy.euweb.cz/ (1,196); insource:/genealogics.org/ (460) and for UK and Irish biographies insource:/www.tudorplace.com.ar/ (381). I would suggest that if you want to help the project cleaning up citations to any of these sites that do not cite any sources would be time better spent than worrying about Lundy where he cites reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
These seem very dodgy: (...) genealogy.euweb.cz - pretty confident this was rejected ages ago as user-generated, I will search in a minute... Guy 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
genealogy.euweb.cz is self published unreliable (..) Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
All this time for the past 12 years, PBS has been pointing out it is an unreliable source, and it seems that others have started to agree since June 2020. But it has still not been deprecated or discouraged. Instead, the number of enwiki articles which use genealogy.eu has only grown from 1,132 to 1,206 in 10 years. I think that, just like with Cawley's MedLands, we need to finally make a decision to remove Miroslav's genealogy.eu as an unreliable source that should not be used anymore, anywhere, anywhen. Because this problem will not go away if we continue to ignore it for another 12 years. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a discussion to deprecate these and similar sources. MedLands isn't deprecated and just keep getting added back, as does geni.com and the self-published peerage sites. Maybe all the genealogy sources that are already known to be unreliable, but keep getting used could be done in a single RFC. There's precedent for adding an unreliable source to the deprecation list because of persistent usage, see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide for instance. Mass RFC's can be unwelcome sometimes, but the other option (holding different RFCs for the same reason for each source) is worse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that advice very much! If you or anyone else has more input or could help me assess the sources I have been listing here, that would be wonderful. I haven't got much experience with RfCs, but I do want to address all these unreliable genealogical websites properly for once (if not for all), and you have been a great help so far, just like when we tackled MedLands last time. The precedent certainly helps as well. NLeeuw (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dic.academic.ru. ru:Academic.ru states it is a database of dictionaries, encyclopedias, bookstores and films; it suggests it is reliable, but does not always respect copyright. Seems fine, although preference should be given to citing the source which the academic.ru search result comes up with rather than the search result itself. Discussed once in March 2024, positively: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#zvukibukvy.ru. used in about 120 enwiki articles (excluding unrelated "DIC" abbreviations)
rulex.ru Russian Biographical Lexicon, seems generally reliable; it is merely a digitisation of two encyclopaedic dictionaries from 1907 and 1916 that we use already, although WP:AGEMATTERS. used in at least 48 enwiki articles, but I've also seen it in many not found in this search result.used in about 270 enwiki articles.
Настоящая биографическая или тематическая статья является электронной, адаптированной к современному русскому языку версией статьи, из 86-томного Энциклопедического Словаря Брокгауза и Ефрона (1890—1907 гг.) или Нового Энциклопедического Словаря (1910—1916 гг.). Тексты всех статей оставлены неизменными.This biographical or thematic article is an electronic version of an article from the 86-volume Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (1890-1907) or the New Encyclopedic Dictionary (1910-1916), adapted to the modern Russian language. The texts of all articles are left unchanged.
I en Wiki får alla vara med och bidra med sina kunskaper och det är både lätt och roligt. Vår förhoppning är att många ska skriva information från sin egen släktforskning så att vi tillsammans kan komplettera traditionella källor. (...) Till varje sida finns det en diskussionssida där man kan skriva om man finner tveksamma uppgifter i en artikel och kanske inte vill ändra i direkt artikeln. In a Wiki, everyone gets to join in and contribute their knowledge, and it's both easy and fun. Our hope is that many people will write information from their own genealogy so that together we can supplement traditional sources. (...) For each page, there is a discussion page where you can write if you find questionable information in an article and perhaps do not want to change the article directly. There you can also write questions and thoughts about the article.}
Внимание! Базу составляют информация из открытой печати и сведения, сообщенные нам посетителями. База не может служить юридическим доказательством родственных связей, но является основой для дальнейших исследований, вспомогательным материалом. Именно поэтому здесь часто не указаны источники информации - в настоящем генеалогическом исследовании каждое слово подтверждается архивными справками, вам все равно придется обращаться в архивы или к профессиональным генеалогам. Если хотите добавить известную Вам информацию, пообщаться на форуме, отправляйтесь в соответствующую часть сайта, чтобы сообщить об обнаруженных ошибках или убрать сведения о себе, пишите на странице обратной связи или напишите ведущей сайта Attention! The database consists of information from the open press and information provided to us by visitors. The database cannot serve as legal evidence of family ties, but is the basis for further research, auxiliary material. This is why sources of information are often not indicated here - in a real genealogical study, every word is confirmed by archival certificates, you will still have to contact the archives or professional genealogists. If you want to add information you know, communicate on the forum, go to the appropriate part of the site to report errors or remove information about yourself, write on the feedback page or write to the site host
The basic view in the application under consideration is a tabular representation of one generation (family) with the possibility to move to older generations (parents) and younger generations (children). On the base view you can enter, change and delete any information about persons, events in their life, some properties. To build some diagrams (genealogical trees) you need to use special functions hidden in the main menu of the application. The diagrams themselves can be both viewed and printed. In general, the programme is a functional minimum for those who are just starting to conduct their genealogical research. In the future, when moving to more advanced genealogical applications, you can use the function of exporting the database to the unified genealogical GEDCOM format, which is understood by all major programmes on the genealogy market. Together with the programme itself a small help file is distributed, in which you can get initial information about the functionality of the programme, its features and conditions of use. The Genealogy programme is conditionally free. The free version has a limitation - you can store no more than 30 persons in the database. If you buy a licence, this limitation is removed. The cost of the licence is 599 p. The terms and procedure of payment are given on the developer's site.
Feb-web.ru ? The Fundamental Electronic Library “Russian Literature and Folklore” (FEB) is a network multifunctional information system that accumulates information of various types (text, sound, visual, etc.) in the field of Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries and Russian folklore, as well as the history of Russian philology and folklore studies. It is a project of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The About page seems to stipulate quite high standards of scientific and scholarly quality, accuracy, correct reproduction of original texts, completeness, and "Compliance with the modern scientific level". On the other hand, it has hundreds of authors, and seems to be set up as a WP:USERGENERATED wiki. I don't know. It might be similar to Adelsvapen or Nupedia in the sense that it requires authors to be or behave like experts and use only highly reliable sources, but it is still usergenerated. Feb-web.ru is currently used in about 70 enwiki articles. I think this might be case-by-case WP:MREL. NLeeuw (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
liveuamap.com useful for military OSINT, but probably not very useful for genealogical research
peoples.ru/about Although content is apparently submitted by project users (Проект Люди является общедоступным, и наполняемым пользователями проекта), it does have some editorial review / control. Might be reliable case-by-case.
Nordisk familjebok is an old general dictionary. Generally OK, but can be outdated.
Riddarhuset is the Swedish house of nobility. I would consider it acceptable, especially on genealogy.
Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon generally an excellent source for Swedish biographies, but some of the oldest material might not have quite the same standard, and it is imcomplete.
@Andejons Thanks for this contribution! So I suppose that Adelsvapen wiki is based on Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor, but users are allowed to add their own genealogy and other contents in a collaborate manner just like Wikipedia? I guess that would mean we still shouldn't use Adelsvapen wiki as a source, but go straight to the original text of Elgenstierna (if we can find it), as that can be relied on? The usergenerated expanded online version of it just cannot be trusted as much. It seems much like the WP:BRITANNICA situation; a digitised version of a printed original that has been updated and expanded, but editorial control over this new online version may not be as rigorous. NLeeuw (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One that still gets used in MedLands[11], discussedany times and isn't reliable. Commonly used for offspring and spouses, as MedLands has a very bad habit of linking anything with the same name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested Hey, didn't you and I and some others deprecate MedLands 1.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy)? I do see that most access-dates in your search result are between 2024-09-30 and 2024-10-22, so these are probably recent re-introductions of MedLands into enwiki, apparently all by the same new User:Vittoriobr who joined enwiki in late 2023, so a few months after we removed all those refs to MedLands in May 2023. For the record Vittoriobr: we appreciate your contributions, but fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), alias Medieval Lands (MedLands) by Charles Cawley, is not a reliable source. We should not be using it anymore, but seek to replace it with a better source. As a relatively new user, you might not have known that, so we're explaining that to you now. :) NLeeuw (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how exactly adelsvapenwiki works, but my impression is that they usually don't change the text of Elgenstierna more than some editorial modernisations. I would suggest replacing with Elgenstierna when possible, but deprecating it should probably not be the first priority. I've certainly seen far worse.
I agree. Currently I am thinking that Adelsvapen doesn't have to be WP:DEPRECATED (it can't be, this is the first time it is discussed and it is not that unreliable), but should be considered WP:UGC, as ActivelyDisinterested also said at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adelsvapen.com. It is recommended to be replaced by a better source, but in non-BLP articles, that would have no urgency. Although I could also see a case-by-case WP:MREL classification, I think this would put it in the WP:GUNREL group.
Both genealogy.eu and genealogy.euweb.cz have been discussed on RSN before, I don't think either were considered reliable. If you wanted them to be formally WP:DEPRECATED, as in having them added to the edit filter etc, then that will require a discussion on RSN and probably an RFC. If you just want to list them here as "Should never be used", then I don't see why you couldn't have the discussion here. Deprecation is a formal procedure, but in most cases there's no need to do it.
Projects can maintain source lists (and I would encourage them to do so), but they can't do so against the general consensus of the community (basically the advice from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). So as long as your list takes into account prior discussions you don't need RSN, if you disagree with prior discussions or want some additional input RSN is always available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website https://www.ritarihuone.fi contains only a little information about the families, but I would expect it to be reliable, since they also publish research on the families. The publications are probably more useful than the website.
Kansallisbiografia is generally reliable. The articles are usually written by historians specializing on the period in question. At worst, the articles are directly based on Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, adding nothing to them, but even this is quite rare. The site is behind the paywall, but the bios can be accessed for free through https://www.biografiasampo.fi
For those interested, I've got a running list of non-RS genealogy/royalty refs here that includes links to current use/my removal efforts on Wikipedia. Anything that doesn't have a strikethrough has citations that still need to be deleted/replaced. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What does the insource: part do exactly when you make a search query within enwiki? I notice I can find 2 results for insource: svenskadel.nu, but 0 results for just svenskadel.nu, so it definitely does something useful. Edit: Usually insource: seems to work a bit better than without, as it yields more results, but in a few cases it seems better not to use insource:. I don't know why. NLeeuw (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"insource" searches through the source text (what you see when editing a page if you don't use the Visual Editor), so it catches items in, e.g., templates or URLs that would normally be invisible on the rendered page. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
