Template talk:Austrian archdukes

Inclusion of descendants of Austrian nobility born after 1918

Same message as in Talk:Tuscan princes: Unless and until sufficient reliable sources are supplied identifying people born after 1919 (when nobility/royalty was abolished and titles/styles outlawed in Austria) as legitimate archdukes of Austria, such people should be removed from this navigation box. Especially for living people, it is inappropriate OR and potentially BLP-violating to ascribe unsourced titles that imply an individual actively claims a defunct noble role, especially in countries where such titles are illegal. Per WP:NAV-WITHIN I will be removing the people listed in the latest generations whose inclusion is not supported by reliable sources in their articles. The onus should be on the editor who includes (potentially illegal) defunct titles and styles to prove their additions meet sourcing guidelines.

Also pinging the participants of the discussion at Template:Austrian archduchesses: dwc lr Guy Surtsicna DrKay JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay, this seems correct to me. Austrian archdukes, as a thing, ends with the Habsburg Act. Guy (help!) 22:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added a reference out in the template and in various articles. There is no OR, there are no BLP concerns there are Reliable Sources which say they are still Archdukes. The template makes clear the Austrian republic does not recognise titles post 1919, the template is fair and balanced. - dwc lr (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, there are exactly no reliable sources saying they are still archdukes, because the Habsburg Law means that there is no such thing any more. A source whihc claims there is an archduke of Austria is, by definition, unreliable. Guy (help!) 23:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Declaring someone is (an) archduke of Austria is putting forth two claims, one about the person, the other about the existence of the title. We can argue the qualifications for "archduke of Austria" have changed over time, or that there are now multiple meanings of the term; however, both of these conditions still acknowledge there is a difference somewhere. We can all agree that difference originated in 1919, and hopefully we agree it constitutes a distinction between people who possess(ed) a noble title recognized by the originating country, and those whose title was abolished before they were born.

I am not arguing here that we should ignore COMMONNAME/NCROY for article titles. I am arguing the self- or media-reference applicable to COMMONNAME is not sufficient to declare actual, undisputed membership in a class defined externally to that individual. A small note at the top of the navbox is not sufficiently clarifying; the rest of the template treats equally those who legally had a title in their lifetime, those whose nobility was outlawed in prior generations, and those whose legally-noble forebears renounced their families' rights of succession to the throne. "Archduke of Austria" before 1919 definitionally entailed specific rights and recognition within Austria that no longer exist. If a person born before 1919 is categorized as an archduke, the reader can comfortably assume that person's titling was uncontested--that he was an archduke in the view of himself, the public, and the granting body. After this date (which is impossible to discern in this template), it is entirely unclear the justifications used for inclusion: is it because he titles himself an archduke? because (potentially sensationalized) news media in other countries call him an archduke? because other governments recognize the title? because he heads an active monarchist restoration movement? because books published by and for royal genealogy enthusiasts refer to him as such? or because he descends from someone who may or may not have been legitimized by any of the above reasons, even though RS titling does not yet exist for himself?*

I am also not convinced this new, relaxed understanding of Austrian titles is actually widespread; my suspicion is most people outside of central Europe (i.e. the vast majority of eng WP readers) still attach the "former" meaning (encompassing the intended target of Adelsaufhebungsgesetz) and its attendant privileges to the title and have no idea nobility was abolished in Austria. The media, monarchists, and self-interested would-be nobles then propagate this misunderstanding for their own benefit. By stating in wikivoice an individual is an archduke of Austria, we are explicitly giving more weight to sources that, for BLPs anywhere else on WP, are considered less reliable than official government documents. I would argue further the legal considerations in Austria elevate, beyond general BLP and NPOV, the quality requirements for citing noble entitlement. Therefore, we should be conservative in inserting allegations of illegal royal pretension in (especially BLP) articles.

• In several cases royalty books were being cited as proof of title when they were published before the birth of the subject, so clearly there is OR occurring. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Show me where? - dwc lr (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• JoelleJay, in fact I think he would have to have assumed the title prior to 1918 (or he would be a crown prince), but your point stands. The obvious thing to do here is to draw the line at 1918, and then include a link to an article describing the end of the Archduchy. The existence of sources that pretend the Habsburg Act never happened is not in doubt. Likewise, the existence of the Habsburg Act, which definitively ended the title of Archduke, is not in doubt.

  Asserting that someone born after 1918 is an archduke of Austria is an NPOV failure, because, as you say, it presents as fact a worldview that is flatly contradicted by applicable law. Guy (help!) 22:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I looked into this a little bit a few months back, and there's a clear issue in that lots of popular sources refer to, for example, Karl Habsburg, as "Archduke" and even claim that he's royalty [1] [2]. It's a kind of strange situation. His family have renounced all their claims and titles, and the kingdom they once ruled no longer exists, but it seems like a substantial fraction of the press prefers to just give him these titles anyways. One could argue that since he's called "Archduke Karl von Habsburg" in English-language sources, that's what we should call him too. I don't really buy that, but it is a very weird situation. I have a feeling that an RFC will be needed to deal with this so that we can point to a clear consensus on how to deal with these titles. Otherwise trying to change them will lead to endless edit-warring, since there are countless sources people can point to that use these titles, no matter how inappropriate they may be. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what others say and reliable sources say these people are Archdukes. Simple as that. Template says Austria does not recognise the titles. Our job is to reflect what reliable sources say not insert our view. If there is widely held conflicting views they should be prestened which this template clearly does. - dwc lr (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

DWC LR, No, Wikipedia can and does reject popular delusions. For example, we do not say that homeopathy works, because science says it's bollocks however many true believers say otherwise. Same with creationism. There are no archdukes of Austria, and haven't been since 1918. Guy (help!) 13:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think just saying all Austrian archdukes ceased to exist in 1918 is as simple as all that. The Adelsaufhebungsgesetz of 3 April 1919 abolished noble titles in Austria. But the Habsburgergesetz of the same date banished all members of the House of Habsburg from the country. So the Austrian law against noble titles would not actually have any jurisdiction over the Archdukes of Austria themselves until they started to be granted permission to re-enter the country in the 1960s. Noble titles continued to be recognised in Hungary until 1947, and Prince Lorenz of Belgium is still recognised as Archduke of Austria-Este today in Belgium. Opera hat (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Opera hat, you can't have a feudal lordship in a society that has revoked feudalism. Guy (help!) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing noble titles with feudal lordships; they are not the same thing. Even under the empire, the only Archduke to actually rule Austria was the Emperor, but that didn't mean that all the other members of the family were not archdukes as well. In the United Kingdom noble titles still exist, but haven't implied any actual territorial governance since at least the 15th century. The Duke of Devonshire is the Duke of Devonshire, even though the family has never owned any land in Devonshire. Noble titles have been "empty" titles for centuries. The point I am trying to make is that the Austrian republic can only have jurisdiction over its own citizens; even after 1919, other countries remained perfectly entitled to recognise someone as bearing the title Archduke of Austria if they wanted. The Kingdom of Hanover ended in 1866, but are you going to say that Prince Albert of Monaco can't call his own sister Princess of Hanover? Opera hat (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree, or with Hanover, Queen Elizabeth II for that matter - “ My Lords, I do hereby declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco..." Or Liechtenstein saying the Hereditary Princess is HRH because of birth into the Royal House of Bavaria which was deposed long before she was born. - dwc lr (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet that is all a completely different thing from what you are doing here. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m reflecting Reliable Sources which recognise titles and say he has those titles. - dwc lr (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There are countless examples of people legally holding titles that refer to places in other countries, which happen to be republics. Some governments recognize ancient titles referring to republics (e.g. Denmark, Monaco, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, the UK, etc), while others create entirely new titles referring to places in republics (e.g. the UK, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, etc). But as I said numerous times, legality does not matter. Surtsicna (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, remove all entrants born after 1918. Including them is inaccurate and misleading. Smeat75 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Navigation boxes (like this one) should not have unlinked entries

Per WP:EXISTING, navigation templates should avoid including items without their own articles. A navigation box is meant to provide a coherent grouping of related articles with more organization than a category; it is not supposed to be a comprehensive list or genealogy. This template has a bunch of non-notable people in it who should be removed. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)