Jump to content

Talk:Alexander, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dubious

[edit]

Germany is a republic. No German titles are recognized. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 March 2024

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Supporters failed to refute the contention that "Prince Alexander of Schaumburg-Lippe" is the most common name. I will add as a personal comment that if it is true that Alexander is a pretender and not a real prince, there may be a case to move to Prince Alexander of Schaumburg-Lippe, which by its inconsistency with the standard form would make it look less like an official title and more like the common name it is foremost alleged to be. Obviously, that was only proposed once near the end and so there can be no consensus here on that one way or another. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC); revised 03:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe → Alexander zu Schaumburg-Lippe – WP:NCROY states

Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use.

German monarchy was abolished in 1919. The "zu" is in the name instead of "of" as names should not be translated.

Move request on similar pages for reference. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • support per nom—blindlynx 15:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the proposed title is unfamiliar looking in its German language form. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: EDIT: Per WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed title is not used by most English-language sources. Any argument about monarchy is original research and irrelevant. Per Wikipedia:NCROY, it is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title). The article subject is referred to as "Prince Alexander of Schaumburg-Lippe" by The Times, Tatler, South China Morning Post, News.com.au, ¡HOLA! The Daily Beast, Daily Mirror, The News International, and Geo TV. EDIT: CBS News uses "Prince Alexander zu Schaumburg-Lippe" --StellarHalo (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists."
    It is a fact that Germany is a republic, not a monarchy. Hopefully Encyclopedia Britannica you consider a satisfactory source for that.
    This source used on the Wikipedia page for the Weimar Constitution has a translation of the Weimar Constitution which clearly states "Art. 109. All Germans are equal before the law. . . Titles of nobility . . may no longer be conferred."
    This is relevant in establishing that this title is a dissolved or defunct title.
    In light of the failed 2022 Reichsburger coup Wikipedia should not be espousing this minority viewpoint that these titles are real. There's extensive discussion on the German page regarding their article title choice of Alexander zu Schaumburg-Lippe. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the rest of the Wikipedia:NOR. "On Wikipedia, original research means...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". Per WP:SYNTH, do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. None of the sources you brought up talks about the article subject. In other words, none of what you just said is relevant to this article's title or content. Wikipedia determines which viewpoint is majority or minority based on prominence in reliable sources, not what any one user concludes to be "real" or "truth" based on original research. It publishes what most reliable sources say about a topic and this is reflected in policies regarding Wikipedia:Article titles which says "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Also, what happened over at the German Wikipedia is not relevant. If you are not willing to put forward arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then do not reply. StellarHalo (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. He is not the Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe and never was. There would need to be a WP:COMMONNAME argument to use the title anyway on grounds similar to Queen Latifah (i.e. sure, it's not a real title, but he's called that anyway) which isn't likely to happen for an obscure figure like this - one random tatler celeb gossip site reference does not a COMMONNAME make. To go back into the broader reasoning, noble titles are genuine government offices in some countries. If Wikipedia identifies someone by a noble title, there's a default assumption that the title is real and recognized, and not aspirational (we are not moving Bonapartist claimants to Emperor Napoleon VII of France, which is not a real title in the French government). It is very clearly not in this case - there is no such German government position. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, Tatler is a fashion and lifestyle magazine similar to other Condé Nast magazines, Vogue and Vanity Fair and it is not the only English-language RS to use call him "Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe" as I have demonstrated above. Second, Wikipedia is not a legal document. It is an encyclopedia that publishes what is verifiable per RS, not truth and forbids original research including synthesis. Whatever assumption anyone gets from content on Wikipedia is not relevant. Its content has no obligation whatsoever to respect any government or law. Also, the title "Prince Napoléon" in Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon is purely a courtesy title and has never been created by a letter patent of any past French monarch or government. --StellarHalo (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd possibly be willing to move Napoleon VII's article as well, but OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's a less bad case at the very least as "Prince Napoleon" isn't anchored to a place.
I am a huge fan of VNT, so you're preaching to the choir there. However, hopefully you agree that it is easily verifiable that not only does the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe no longer exist, but that the German nobility is abolished? And in general, I personally assign extremely, extremely little weight to "noble gossip" columns from lifestyle magazines. So their value as a source is outweighed here. If there were an avalanche of reliable sources of the highest order continuing to refer to them by this title on COMMONNAME basis, fine, but that doesn't exist. SnowFire (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research is one of the three main content policies. Using the state of the German nobility to make a conclusion about someone's name that is not explicitly stated by any source is very much original research. Second, there has been no consensus that lifestyle magazines are unreliable. Your personal opinion on what weight to give them have no relevance in policies. All English-language RS that mention the article subject call him a prince. Most RS in other languages including German also do so. Also, no one else here besides me has been able to provide any source indicating what his full legal name actually is. StellarHalo (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Looks fairly straightforward. The current name is neither the WP:COMMONNAME, nor is it an accurate title since he's not actually a prince as such. With that in mind, we would default to the German title which the commonly used name there and is his actual name.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mention of son by name

[edit]

@JayBeeEll The article subject's son is independently notable per WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent reliable sources: South China Morning Post, El Mundo, ABC, ¡Hola!, Vanity Fair, HLN, Mujer Hoy, Neue Presse 1, Schaumburger Nachrichten, Schaumburger Zeitung 1, Deister- und Weserzeitung, Bunte 1, Wunstorfer Auepost, Lippische Landes-Zeitung, Die Zeit.

Also he is mentioned by name in multiple RS about his father: 1, 2, 3, 4. This means his name has to be included in the body per WP:DUE. StellarHalo (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe&oldid=1242055712"