Talk:Duke of Cleveland

	Biography portal This article 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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

hoax

This article has been mentioned in an article by ABC News. Note that ABC makes a mistake in stating, "The entry was written by Joshua Gardner". The edits mentioned, such as this one, were done by anonymous IP addresses and not by the user who started the article, as might be implied by news reports. - Banyan Tree 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this article is about a real peerage title. The hoax mentioned was the attempted insertion of a "Third Creation" into the preexisting article on at least two occasions. Both attempts were promptly reverted. - Banyan Tree 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn straight! --Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long did it takes us to revert?--Jimbo Wales 23:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First time, under a minute. Second time, nine minutes. Third time, twenty-five minutes. Fourth time, thirty-two minutes. Fifth time, one hour. This is why I'd like to see an auto-watchlist for rollbacks. [[Sam Korn]] 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict, don't know why Sam and I disagree on times] There were multiple attempts in May. First attempt on 10 May by 24.118.246.52 (talk · contribs), 9 minutes. 2nd attempt on 10 May, 9 minutes. 3rd attempt on 10 May, 5 minutes. 4th attempt on 10 May mixing Earlofscooby (talk · contribs) and .52 edits, 22 minutes (Wikipedians were probably temporarily confused by the use of a sockpuppet). Fifth attempt on 22 May by 70.92.147.158 (talk · contribs), 32 minutes. Later on the 22nd there was an interesting interaction where what appears to be a separate vandal (69.180.181.40 (talk · contribs) dropped in, then .158 came to partially revert and add his hoax back in (sixth time), and the entire thing was reverted to a good edit 3 hours and 58 minutes after the initial vandalism.

Also on 22 May, there were three separate creations of Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland. It was put up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland, and apparently speedied as an obvious hoax as were the rest. - Banyan Tree 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had slight "next 50" problems... [[Sam Korn]] 00:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness. I thought my mind had finally gone. I've given this some thought and find it incredibly unlikely that a reporter dug through the edit history here. I think that they got it off the archived VfD page, which lists both the hoax name, real name and hoax title. This would make statements like, "Under Caspian's" entry on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written by the public, they found the name "Joshua A. Gardner" in parentheses after the entry name. (St. Paul Pioneer Press) much more believable. It would be nice if they would point out that the page in question is not an article but a vote to delete the article as a hoax, which was cut short by a speedy deletion. Thoughts? - Banyan Tree 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. Someone pointed out this mirror of Duke of Cleveland that contains the hoax, still. They still had the actual hoax article from May 22nd as well, but it looks like they blanked it 20 hours ago. I don't know how many mirrors there are, but that seems like sheer dumb bad luck that it would pick it up and never be updated. - Banyan Tree 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be pursued a la Seigenthaler (ie. to the bitter end, out of principle). Not sure if its unethical of us to throw salt into the wound, but since he's a sexual offender anyway, I propose we sue whoever this Joshua Gardner is, as a principle of retaliation. We could probably find it very easy to obtain damages from him, while reclaiming some of our priniciples, demonstrating such forgeries like this (in order to perform acts of fraud) would not be tolerable. We could easily file criminal lawsuits for this. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new article created

Minnesota Sex Offender Scandal - transferred main material to separate article, since it had little to do with the factual Duke of Cleveland, the topic of this article (though I recognize the irony, his attempts at his own Wikipedia entry are now part of a newsworthy story warranting his own entry, though not as he intended it) - Reaverdrop 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have further reduced the section, making into a "See also" link. I think the story of that guy is only related to this article, not a part of it at all. I have also removed the references as they are already in the other article. As as side note: shouldn't the sex offender article go to wikinews? - Liberatore(T) 13:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Cleveland

Some more bad news involving Wikipedia, huh! Here it is, apparently a registered sex offender calling himself the "Duke of Cleveland" edited the article with the same title under the name "Earl of Scooby." This, was his masterpeice. Wow. As if the Seigenthaler controversy wasn't bad enough. I just hope this doesn't create another problem. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that just now, I've spoke about news involving Wikipedia when I went to the conference. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we get it. Wikipedia is evil because nasty people on the Internet can edit it. We apologize for existing. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the true facts (mirrors, lags and so forth) ABC news reported they found his bogus claim on Wikipedia.

Revert

The table has made the article unnecessary long, has removed the full names of the dukes and has added information about children and wives, which belongs to the respective article, so I have removed the table and reverted the article to the last version before its insertion.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factually correct?

how is this possible:

William FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Cleveland, 2nd Duke of Southampton (1698–1774), eldest son of the 2nd Duke of Cleveland. He died without issue, and his titles were extinct.

vs

William Vane, 1st Duke of Cleveland (1766–1842), great-grandson of the above 2nd Duke

William FitzRoy died without issue, so how is William Vane his great grandson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.99.50 (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let's see. The 2nd Duke of Cleveland could have had other children? Our article doesn't say, but presumably, the 2nd Duke of Cleveland could have had a daughter and upon the death of the 3rd Duke of Cleverland, if that daughter did not have male heirs, the title would go extinct, I think, depending on the particular of the Letters Patent. I hope someone who knows more than I do can speculate further or - even better - if we could find a source with a more definitive answer than this. (You might have assumed tht the 'great-grandfather' in question was William Fitzroy, but I think we meant that William Vane, 1st Duke of Cleveland (second creation) was the great-grandson of Charles Fitzroy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland (first creation). Does that make sense?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Barnard seems to cover the issue, He became his Grace the 1st Duke of the second issue because he was the grandson of Grace the daughter of his Grace the second Duke. So the third Duke was the great uncle of the first Duke of the second issue. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the mistake of not reading the page properly before adding this section. I confused the title 2nd Duke of Southampton with 2nd Duke of Cleveland . My apologies.