Talk:House of Baillet

Revert

Cab Carolius give reliable sources for all he has just reverted? Paul Brussel (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No, he can not give other sources, than the sources that are verified and checked. So they do not need to be deleted, unless you have a verifieble source that can prove otherwise.--Carolus (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Carolus keeps reverting unsourced information. Shame on him for the article to be mistrusted though. Paul Brussel (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, you are quiet right Paul, thanks for the motivating advice and help we all receive.--Carolus (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NL (and less WP:FR) should be consulted on this family; WP:NL is well sourced, contrary to this article. But this family extinct in 1998, not in 1980 as WP:NL states (EPN (2003) not being mentioned). Paul Brussel (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

WP Cannot be used as source, don't you know that, or should i explain this to you?--Carolus (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course I do know that rule but since I dispose of the sources used on WP:NL and I have checked them, I can easily refer to that article which is reliable, with the exception I mentioned. (This article can't be trusted.) Paul Brussel (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Carolus, please stop adding unreliable and wrong information to the article. It seems that you (er-)introduce errors with every edit you make here, including your latest two: [1] (it's Maximilien-Antoine, the first of that name, not some hybrid Maximilian II Antoine) and [2] (the family tree was not reliable anyway, and didn't support the claim that the family had great influence in the church, with just one member having a somewhat elevated function in Ghent). This is in addition to the many other errors removed from this article. If you are not certain about information, just leave it out, or doublecheck it with more (more recent and more reliable) sources. Don't continue your addition of information which somehow, from a distance, resembles reality but has just enough changes and misinterpretations to make it totally wrong anyway. Fram (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Carolus when you write "great" influence that is not backed up by an independent source this then can be classified as original research. A lot of what you write is your own personal interpretation of facts. This is really getting tedious you have a whole bunch of experienced editors some of whom are also administrators trying to clean up after you and carrying out surveillance on your editing. I wonder if it is not time to try and find some kind of solution such as mentoring to avoid this kind of problem. Domdeparis (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

On WP:FR the sources to be used on Belgian nobility are listed, with indication of their reliability. None of those sources are used for this article, but lots of very marginal and totally unreliable or completely outdated 'sources' are used. This makes this article totally unreliable. Carolus, 'contributing' with a mass of edits on WP:EN, disposes of none of these sources and relies systematically on sources only to be found on internet, including lots of gossip newspapers and magazines, not weighing at all whether they could be used for a serious encyclopedia. Having consulted all the sources mentioned on WP:FR on this family, I can say that this article should be completely re-written based on those sources in order to be reliable; now it contains false information. Paul Brussel (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It should not be rewritten but added, with availeble sources.--Carolus (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am afraid that you don't even realize how worrying this reply is for WP:EN. You dump masses of so called information on Belgian noble families on WP:EN without ever relying on reliable sources, as mentioned in the link I gave. I am also very much afraid that you don't read French which would make you entirely unsuitable to contribute on this topic, since the most reliable sources are all written in French. You base your contributions mostly on totally random and unreliable sources, as I have said before, and this is a good example. You don't even realize that for a good article on this family you would need to study -not via internet sources, but real ones- for hours to make this into a sound article. (I know you are completely not capable of doing that.) Paul Brussel (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Mon Chèr copain de Bruxelles, vous n'avez pas la polittesse de juger les autres commes vous-etes Dieu tout-puissant! Votre Arrogance est connu dans le WNL: WIKI par tout le monde, alors je vous conseille de penser deux fois avant d'ecrire des accusations faux et ridicules! Vous perdez chaque fois votre honneur, tant pis, par-ce-que j'ai l'impression que vous pensez d'en avoir! Bonne, Soiree, Monsieur de Bruxelles.--Carolus (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you read French, I would then certainly take advantage of reading really reliable sources instead of turning to those unreliable newspapers and gossip magazines you seem to read more often. Paul Brussel (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Carolus I have already reminded you that on talk pages on EN wikipedia it is forbidden to use other languages. Domdeparis (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Even to demonstrate one's familiarity with a foreign language when that is called into question by another user? I do hope my eyes aren't rolling too loudly. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater: Your eyes are rolling very loudly but I would suggest that you avoid it because if you had taken the time to look at Carolus's talk page in here on the French wikipedia you would have noticed that he cannot communicate in French or prefers to communicate in English. When another editor left him a message in French he posted a reply in pretty poor English and the only time that he tried to communicate in French on a talk page the result is less than poor. [3] Just in case you don't read French Carolus says in very approximative French with 7 spelling and grammar errors in 1 sentence "I wrote the page myself so if you are going to accuse me of copyvio I will not be writing anything else in your wiki" to which the admin replies "Hello, no the page was not deleted because of copyvio but because it was so poorly translated that it was unreadable". So unless Carolus has suddenly become familiar with French in the space of a few months I think that he may have used google translation or something similar to try and prove the other editor wrong. That said even his edit in French on this page is full of errors. If you do speak French have a look at this [4] diff of edits by Carolus from earlier in September and try and count the spelling and grammar errors in French, the mix of tenses, lack of accents and spelling mistakes all in 1 phrase of 13 words suggests that French is not a language that he masters. So eye rolling may not have been appropriate in my opinion, on French wiki he communicates in poor English and on English wiki he communicates in Dutch and poor French. Domdeparis (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating as Carolus's communications on other wikis no doubt are, it really makes no difference to the content of this wiki. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How right you are! And his editing is a problem here. Just have a look at his talk page and his last edits to get an idea why. Domdeparis (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

House or Family

This page has been moved from family to house of. From what I can see there are no sources that attest to this being the WP:COMMONNAME of the family. Can someone find one especially in English that shows that this is the appropriate title for the article? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. It is clear there's a lack of consensus for this move at the present time. It may be a good idea to revisit this or another RM depending on the outcome of discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

---

House of Baillet → Baillet family – There are no sources in the article that suggest this family has been predominantly known or ever known as the House of Baillet. The only source in the article that actually mentions the family is in French and says La famille Baillet fut ultérieurement anoblie, which means The Baillet family was later ennobled. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) ".. a family as an entity of interest in its own right (the family name is used as the article title)" as there is a place known as Baillet-en-France it would be useful to add family after Baillet to distinguish it from the place. These kind of moves were the subject of a long debate here that threw up no conclusion as to whether a family that was not a ruling dynasty should be titles house of or not. What was suggested by quite a few editors was to treat each subject on an individual basis which is what I am doing. Depending on the outcome of this request I will sift through the remaining House of articles and their sources and if the concensus is that in the absence of sources pointing to a WP:COMMONNAME as house of I will request that they be moved in a Multiple page move request. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have no desire to get embroiled in this, but would like to point out that there needs to be a discussion of whether this is a case of WP:NDESC. From WP:AT: "Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." If there is agreement that a name is what is being discussed, then WP:COMMONNAME is an important consideration as argued above. I'd also suggest that further test cases may be needed depending upon the result here, since some editors have argued that treatment should vary depending upon the country/language involved. Dekimasuよ! 16:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are several book and many web sources that support "House of Baillet". However, this proposal omits a third option, "counts of Baillet" which appears to be the overwhelmingly most common book usage i.e. 575 instances on Google books as opposed to 53 for "Baillet family". So more research is needed and the proposal comes across as an attempt to start the two previously reverted mass moves by stealth. I do hope it isn't. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory here and nothing stealthy or I wouldn't have bothered with a RM. I have done exactly what PBS suggested. There was no concensus during the discussion that House of was reserved only for royal families but there was no concensus that it should be used for all noble families either.Dom from Paris (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@User:Domdeparis Apart from yourself and one other editor and excluding drive by editors (who make one brief comment and depart), who is favour of having a rule based on one source (Library of Congress catalogue)? Everyone else has suggested that we follow the sources (per WP:COMMONNAME) In this case if "Count[s] of Bailllet" is more common than "Baillet family" (as Bermicourt states) would you support such a move from "House of"? (This is often done for British articles eg Duke of Beaufort and the French family Duke of Beaufort (France) disambiguate it. The French Beaufort article started at Duc de Beaufort then moved to Dukes of Beaufort (France) and then to its current article name/title (which according to the WP:CRITERIA) Naturalness is the more appropriate article title than "Dukes of ...". -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is part of a tediously on-going campaign to reserve the use of "house" to royal families, apparently inspired by Game of Thrones. It really has no place off a fan wiki. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind giving a policy based argument for you opposition to this move. Forget the game of thrones red herring for a minute. Are you saying that house of is to be used for all noble families? If so what is the basis for this ? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would you think I am saying something I have never suggested? To clarify, I vehemently oppose attempts to impoverish the natural range of the English language for the sake of a Procrustean consistency, especially when, as in the present case, they are based on declaredly frivolous reasons. I'm fairly sure (see e.g. here) that it was you who brought up Game of Thrones, which you now want to dismiss as a red herring, as part of an argument to restrict the use of "House of" in article titles project-wide. I don't see any reason to treat this particular proposal separately from that wider declared goal. It has every appearance of a trial balloon for yet another push for pointless moves and changes, and I am having none. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And your reason for opposing it is ...? The relevant policy that you wish to invoke is what exactly? Or is it WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? I am not talking about consistency so that one is another red herring. I have moved on from that so maybe you should too. I am not talking about Game of Thrones any more I am talking about this particular article and the reson for it being titled house of despite their being no sources that attest to this being the commonname for the family. Are you saying that all noble families should have the article titled House of and that is it? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral. Honestly, this specific article doesn't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever. It doesn't really say anything, is poorly cited, lacks concrete details, and includes a number of problem statements or anachronisms (Belgium didn't exist until 1830, for example). I'd say this is a somewhat poor example to start with regarding renaming "House of..." articles to "... family" since this article is just as likely to be nominated for deletion. To give some more unfiltered Google search statistics: it is cited under "famille de baillet" 6,220 times, "maison Baillet" 2,360 times, "Baillet family" 2,090 times, and "house of Baillet" 1,890 times. So I agree that "Baillet family" is probably the best name to give the page, but the pool is pretty small and once you look at Google Book listings, the house becomes pitifully unimportant: 1,030 results for "famille de Baillet," 53 for "Baillet family," 41 for "Maison Baillet," and 3 for "House of Baillet." So again, the evidence leads toward calling the article "Baillet family" but it also suggests the family is not important enough to even have an article about. My own (non-noble) family comes up with over three times as many Google book results and 65,600 standard Google results. I feel the Baillet family may not really be worth having an article at all. In contrast, I think Bermicourt has the best option calling the page "Count of Baillet" (or "Count of Baillet-Latour") since it easily wins in regards to Google searches: 14,900 results for "Comte de Baillet," 1,420 for "Count of Baillet," 10,800 results for "Comte de Baillet" in Google Books. I vote for "Count of Baillet-Latour".  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine but what do we do about members of the family that were not the holders of the title either before it was created or after. The title was created in the 18th century but the article mentions previous members of the family. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How about Baillet (noble family)? Dom from Paris (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There can't be that many members on Wikipedia. I'd recommend just linking any references to the family to the "Count of Baillet-Latour" page. It is not a perfect solution but it avoids unnecessary pages. Assuming the title was only ever held by that family, there can just be section at the bottom of the page that says "Other Notable Members of the Family" or something like that. Or maybe just not reverse link at all. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions)

• Oppose move to family for the reasons Bermicourt gave. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of is ongoing so it is probably premature to move pages until a consensus emerges, but if the page is to be move then I agree with Whaleyland and Bermicourt and move it to Count of Baillet do not make it Counts of Baillet for WP:AT (WP:CRITERIA) "Naturalness – ... and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles" — Count of Baillet is more likely phrase in an article than Counts of Baillet. -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as in reality it is the title that has confered notabilty to this family. That said most of the Counts used the name Baillet-Latour including the last holder. The French WP page uses Baillet-Latour fr:Famille_de_Baillet-Latour. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I am relaxed about either "Count of Baillet" or "Count of Baillet-Latour", let the sources decide. However if there has been just one or two very well known members of the family relatively recently while centuries of other people with "Count of Baillet" then it may be more appropriate even if the simple number of Google book hits is higher for "Baillet-Latour" to use "Count of Baillet" for the title. I see this issue as similar to articles on English/British Kings and Dukes while the article title only includes their most important realm/title. Also as I said above as there is yet to be a consensus on the preferred format in the discussions in the section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of and it may be premature to go with a new article title here. However I also understand that examining real cases may help clarify that discussion. -- PBS (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On pages 643 and 644 of this source the name seems to be interchangeable and was used to refer to the first count. [5] Dom from Paris (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.