Talk:Maltese nobility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2005. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

Contents

[edit] Adjusted links

Is there an independent reference to indicate there was a British Colonial Royal Commission? I think this article needs some authoritative referencing.

Referring to something as "the" Royal Commission suggests it was a specific organisation. I'd suggest "a Royal Commission" -- isn't a royal commission a commission of inquiry into a particular issue anyway? So, there can be, for example, the Royal Commission into Titles for Maltese Nobles and so on, but no single body called the Royal Commission.

Are there any references to this particular royal commission online? Ampersand77 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On good advice from the Vfd page, I'm moving some of your pages, those that preëmpt the names of Saints. The links here therefore had to be adjusted. Best, Bill 23:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thanks Bill. No problems. User:Tancarville 1.46pm 27 Oct 2004.

[edit] Acknowledgement

(Text originally based on that of a website by Charles Said Vassallo, by permission.)

[edit] Proposed mergers

I'm proposing that the following articles should be merged into this one:

Count of Santi

Count of Meimun

Marquis of Taflia

Barons of Grua

Barony of Gomerino


there are plenty of others but I haven't the time or energy to work through them at the moment - maybe some other kind soul will do it.

Reasons:

1. These articles are virtually identical to each other, differing only in their title and a few details such as dates.

2. Most of each article is unreadable - large chunks of Latin copied verbatim from the original sources

3. Most of the references are identical

andy (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tancarville has started to do this. The emphasis is to highlight the historical relevance and issues concerning each title.

2. All recent updates contain a precise reference to the grants. Checking each and every reference for this arcane subject, in no less than five languages, is no easy task. Postitive criticism from a Wikipedia administrator is appreciated but vindictive undermining is not. There is always room for improvement.

3. Each title has its own history. In regard to those which were created by the Grand Masters who ruled Malta, the "remainders" vary in their meaning and effect. For this reason it was thought best to quote verbatim the respective remainders, and this in Latin i.e. the original text.

4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished.

5. In regard to the foreign titles of nobility which were recognized by the Grand Masters, these are by far even more complex, not only because of the 1739 ad 1795 legislation, but also because the most of the original fons honorum have long gone (with the exception of the King of Spain).

6. It is a useless exercise to merge all titles into one group. At best, one can identify different classifications. (For example, the 1878 Royal Commission classified Rohan's creations into 3 groups). - But in fairness's sake, this is an exercise which could only be done once all the relative information is up and runnning.

7. If anybody has issues with the fact that by 1800 Malta had an advanced form of Nobility, that is his/her problem. - Facts are facts.

8. Tancarville has also made available the FULL texts in *.pdf format of the 1878 Royal Commission and official correspondence.

9. Whilst the 1878 Commission's findings are regarded as authoritative, some aspects required revisiting not only because of some apparent errors and contradictions found in the Report itself, but also because of subsequent developments.

10. Moreover, at the end of each title's description, there is a list of direct and indirect proofs of each title's legitimacy and authoritative documentation, emphasising the Primary source and moving downards in terms of (relative) importance.

11. It is definitely not true that the only difference between one title and the other is "a change in the date an heading". Some may be very similar, but others are radically different.

12. Old general legislation (i.e. pre-1800) is quoted in full for the convenience of the reader. If anybody ventures a argument or claim in respect of any one of the titles, he/she might as well be reminded of the general pitfalls. This "problem", which is common to all updated entries, can be solved by the simple expedient of setting up a separate page.

13. If Wikipedia's administrators want to get some sort of warped pleasure out of creating unnecessary polemics, simply because they are jealous of the Maltese nation's historic identity, let them please delete the whole lot. User talk:Tancarville 1:08;, 26 May 2008 (EST)

Well, while Tancarville is cutting-and-pasting from one of the pertinent AfDs, so shall I:

  • Comment: Alright ... here we go. First off, almost all the non-self-published sources Tancarville cites are unavailable for review to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, which debars them from qualifying as reliable sources. For the non-English language texts, WP:V holds the following: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."
Secondly, while Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign. WP:V further holds:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (emphasis in the original)

So far, and in violation of WP:V, we are taking Tancarville's unsupported word for the existence of the sources he claims and for the accuracy of the information he gives on his website ... and startlingly, we have been doing so for years now. It's also an ominous sign how readily he accuses anyone questioning his sources or seeking to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to his articles of being "vindictive" or having some animus towards Malta, and I'd appreciate some answers that don't boil down to "How dare you?"

... there. As pertinent to this discussion, I'm familiar with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility. It was a terrible, misguided decision, and I'm heartened by the knowledge it wouldn't happen now, as witness the almost unanimous global consensus to delete on the AfDs. We haven't even touched the notability issue.  RGTraynor  11:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've cleaned up the language, added some wikilinks, deleted many others to AfDed/prodded articles. I also struck out references to the Commission for Privileges, seeing as it's a private club without any official connection seeking to "rule" on titles that were abolished by the Maltese government decades ago.

I also struck out the section on those titles not allowed by the 19th century British Royal Commission. One would imagine that the only reason they weren't allowed was that they were spurious, and as such, have no place here.  RGTraynor  13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)