Talk:Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi

Date of birth

This site here states that his date of birth is November 1983. -- Blairall (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Count Edoardo

Country Life does not say that the subject was born "Count Edoardo Alessandro Mapelli Mozzi". It merely refers to him as "Count Edoardo". Please do not restore this without a proper source. This article is about a living person who quite clearly calls himself Mr. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (English: Golden Book of Italian nobility) - Libro d'Oro - was first published in its current form in 1910. It includes some 2,500 families, and may not be considered exhaustive. Included are those listed in the earlier register of the Libro d’Oro della Consulta Araldica del Regno d’Italia and the later Elenchi Ufficiali Nobiliari of 1921 and of 1933.

In 1921 it was the approved '"Official list of noble and titled families of the Kingdom of Italy": the list included all family members already in the regional registers, but it marked with an asterisk those who had obtained title by royal or ministerial decree. The Mapelli-Mozzi family are in the book and are marked with such an asterisk. In the 2000-2004 updated edition, on pages 44-45, Edoardo is listed as having been born in "Londra" (London) on November 19, 1983. He is given the title "Conte". 175.33.248.139 (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

He is accorded the title by the media, but such titles can't be used officially in the United Kingdom.[1] Celia Homeford (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In Europe, where he reportedly often chooses to return, he is, to this day, accorded the title "conte". 175.33.248.139 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

He is accorded the title by the media, but such titles can't be used officially in Italy because they were abolished by Provision XIV of the post-war Italian Constitution. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

He was accorded the title in 2000-2004 by the Libro d'Oro . He is referred to with this title when in Europe as is customary. Please don't be so UK-centric. 175.33.248.139 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Um, Italy isn't in the UK? Celia Homeford (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the subject endorses being called anything but Mr. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

the subject was 21 years old when the Libro d'Oro printed his title in it. He would be well aware of its existence. He would know of his family coat of arms. Yes, I agree, the UK don't recognise the title. But in Europe, we do, and so does Edo otherwise he would have informed the Libro d'Oro to refer to him as "Mr". 175.33.248.139 (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

While nobles of continental European countries where the rights of nobility have been abolished still use their titles socially (and are often referred to as such in the media and even on Wikipedia), Mapelli Mozzi has a more unique situation. It is true that in Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, he may be referred to as a Count, and is officially recognized by the Libro d'Ordo as a member of the Italian nobility. No one here is arguing that he isn't a blue blood. The issue at hand is that Mapelli Mozzi is an English citizen (and Italian) and resides in the UK. In order for him to be able to legally use his foreign title in the UK, he would need permission from the monarch, who has not granted it. It's similar to Stanisław Albrecht Radziwiłł, who was only able to refer to himself as a prince socially. Unlike Radziwill, however, it appears that Mozzi does not even socially use his comital title. So "count" doesn't even apply to WP:Common Name. I believe it should be mentioned in the article that he is a member of the Italian nobility but the title does not belong in the infobox or lede. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Libro d'Oro is not an official publication. It is privately-published and has no official standing whatever. He can be accorded the title socially and privately, even in the UK, but it is not in official use anywhere in the UK, Italy, Europe or elsewhere. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The British historian, Adam Zamoyski - http://www.adamzamoyski.com/about.php - went to school in the UK with Edo's father. His Wikipedia page has him listed correctly as holding the courtesy title of count. However, in his own webpage, he does not mention his courtesy title. The New York Times obituary of Stanisław Albrecht Radziwiłł does not refer to his "princely" courtesy title - yet his Wikipedia page certainly does. There are hundreds of similar articles on wikipedia whereby the courtesy title is acknowledged even though - like Edo - the subject has not ever officially referred to herself/himself using that style.02:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Edo's father currently refers to his son as indeed sharing the family "courtesy title" is enough to warrant a formal acknowledgement to this at the article's commencement.

See 2 citations below, including quotes from his father:

London Evening Standard:

BBC:

Thankyou 175.33.49.35 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The WP convention on defunct titles is, that they should only be used if the majority of sources using it. We don't have to discuss if he is legally a count (he definitely isn't) or if certain social circles call him a count (they definitely do). So as far as I see the majority of sources use Mr. Mozzi not count Mozzi and we definitely should avoid to create any situation where people start calling him a count because that's what's on WP. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To be consistent - we need to remove information from Princess Michael of Kent (born Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz; 15 January 1945. Her German title was only ever a courtesy too (like Mapelli Mozzi's) - the German government abolishing all of their "aristocratic" (von) titles shortly after World War 1 finished. 01:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

She's foreign though. Mapelli Mozzi is British. The official position in the UK is that foreign titles used by foreigners are recognised but that foreign titles used by British citizens are not. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Adding images to the article's body

Should we be adding images depicting the buildings and individuals the subject of this article has been associated with to the page's relatively short body? Keivan.f^Talk 19:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My personal take: The article did not have many images to begin with since we do not have a photo showing the subject himself. Considering that the article is not that long either, MOS:SANDWICH should be taken into consideration when adding images. User:L'Origine du monde has insisted on adding images of the Mapelli Mozzi coat of arms, which we have no idea if the subject uses, the Villa Mapelli Mozzi, Radley College which the subject attended, The Gahanga Cricket Stadium which was apparently built through the help of a charity he co-founded, and images depciting his previous partner Dara Huang and current spouse Princess Beatrice. Her edits were reverted by me on the grounds that an article is not meant to be an image gallery. We do not randomly add images of schools people attended to their articles for example, especially if they have not had any associations with that school afterwards. Not to mention that in this case we also have separate articles on the subject's wife and ex-partner that are one click away so adding their images is also pointless and space consuming. Since we have not been able to resolve the dispute between us, I want the community to help with reaching a consensus. Keivan.f^Talk 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Illustration beats explanation" Western Engraving & Colortype Co. (1916)

I have attempted to discuss this with user:Keivan.f on his talk page. I have explained that there is not a limited amount of space, so space can't be consumed by images, but he doesn't seem to understand, or wish to engage with my desire to add pictures. I clearly explained to him last week why MOS:SANDWICH is not at all relevant, but he cites it again. I pointed him to

WP:IMGCONTENT "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central."

but he replied that " we don't throw around images, specially in cases where an article for the so called place or individual exists."

Images of the subject's school, significant others, and the stadium he raised money for, as well as his noble family's coat of arms, increase readers' understanding of the subject and the article as a whole.

If we were to avoid images of things that have articles about them there would be very few images, and the encyclopedia would be very boring indeed. The fact that the article is very thin increases the importance of good illustrations. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 20:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTREPOSITORY. We do not shoehorn images into an article, merely because one subject has been associated with another. How does an image of "Twin Arches at Radley College" increase the reader's understanding of this subject? Did he build it? We are not talking about an ancient individual like Ramesses II of whom no pictures exist and adding images of places he was associated with is in fact helpful. That is not the case for someone like Mapelli Mozzi, a contemporary individual. Keivan.f^Talk 21:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

user:Keivan.f please stop quoting irrelevant wiki policies. The only relevant text there seems to be "WP:NOTREPOSITORY."Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources."

all the images I added were labeled, and illustrated the text. An image of an extremely expensive school that was attended by the subject helps us understand him through his upbringing. What is the downside of including it?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 21:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I never said that photos do not have accompanying text. What is lacking is the encyclopedic context for some of them. I have already raised my concerns about the images depicting the villa and the coat of arms at the bottom of this section. Keivan.f^Talk 21:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

user:Keivan.f please explain why you removed this image of his family's palace just now, after starting this discussion.

Villa Mapelli Mozzi

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 20:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde I already have in my edit summary. I tried to leave a few images behind to avoid an edit war (despite the fact that you have clearly violated came close to violating WP:3R), whereas in fact I should remove all the images and restore the article back to the stable Jan 16 version, until a consensus is reached. Keivan.f^Talk 21:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

user:Keivan.f you haven't explained why you object to that image, please reread what you wrote. Please do not accuse me of violating WP:3R when I have not. I suggest you read that policy, as well as MOS:SANDWICH as neither are applicable.

Please explain why you think you should "restore the article back to the stable Jan 17 version". I think editors normally stop changing the article after calling an RFC. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 21:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde No, once the edits are disputed by another user, the editor who has been trying to change the page starts the RfC. That's the norm. You should have done this, but I did it on your behalf. And there is no rule that dictates the article cannot be reverted back to its stable version once an RfC has started. With regards to WP:3R, you added the images with these edits, I had them partially removed. You added them partially again, and I reverted that too. You went ahead and added them again, which resulted in me removing them once more. You did it again today here and here. Considering the timespan, here alone you performed three reverts within the same day, reverting edits by me and User:Edwardx. So, to say that you haven't violated WP:3R is definitely a bit of stretch.

That being said, when I look at this version I see the text in the "Background" sandwiched between the image of the coat of arms and the infobox. And on top of that there's the picture of the villa, which further compresses the whole thing. You mentioned that you wanted to add those images to demonstrate his connections to a noble family. All I can say is that there is no source behind the file that depicts the coat of arms or that Edoardo indeed uses it. And there is no indication that he has lived in that villa either. Keivan.f^Talk 21:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi user:Keivan.f!

As you can see, the consensus seems to be that nobody cares apart from you and I. You have been edit warring with me, and I do not understand your attitude that images take space away from more important things.

If there was indeed a formatting problem, sort it out rather than delete content.

The article is very short, has little information, and lacks any image of the subject.

In this case I think it appropriate to illustrate it with images of his Wife, mother of his children, coat of arms, ancestral palace, school, and charitable goal. The coat of arms is his, whether he uses it or not, the palace is his family's, and he is a member of that noble family. Since the most interesting thing about him is that he married a royal, they are all pertinent, and you are not suggesting or adding any other images.

I see you claim "you added the images with these edits, I had them partially removed. You added them partially again, and I reverted that too. You went ahead and added them again, which resulted in me removing them once more." As far as I can see that is you admitting to WP:3R three reverts which is what you accused me of doing. The policy says -

"If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example, if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake."

Please undo your recent edits. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not violate it anything; the rule is that you cannot do it more than three times within a 24-hour period. You introduced the changes without consensus and your edits were reverted accordingly over a long period of time. On the other hand, considering the timespan, here alone you performed three reverts within the same day, reverting edits by me and another user. So while you technically did not violate it you definitely came very close to doing so. First of all, not all RfCs result in immediate comments from second parties. And, again, I don't see the value of adding images of his wife and ex-partner when they already have separated pages dedicated to them. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely ridiculous. While we are at it, we should start adding images of each subject's relatives to their pages based on this logic. Had there been a photo of him next to Beatrice I would not have opposed its inclusion. But that is not the case here. The image of his school is not meaningful either. It's not like he or his family built it or something. He is but one of its alumni. I still don't know if he ever set foot in his family's so-called ancestral seat, but if you're so willing to add it, please go ahead. I would also prefer to see a source included for the coat of arms. The file itself does not have any sources in its description, so the article must offer one, otherwise it would be WP:OR. The image of the cricket stadium is fine IMO, because at least the charity he co-founded has made contributions to it. Keivan.f^Talk 20:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

user:Keivan.f Thank you! We were definately edit warring and you didn't stop after accusing me of it. Hard to behave properly, isn't it!

This is a very un-important article, there isn't any consensus on images, there was just me wanting to add information, and you removing it citing irrelevant policies and claiming that images were "taking up space". It is quite common to include images of things, people, or places that have their own articles, and that duplication of information is Wikipedia's medium. Why is this person notable? Because he is married to York. His child's mother is not a relative, nor is his wife. He attended that school. Somebody reading the article can look at the school and get an idea of his education. Why object to that? It makes the article look better. Consensus is that the CoA is valid.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 20:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I do have to confess that when arguing one gets carried away sometimes. I apologize if I sounded too harsh. That being said, spouses, partners, parents and children are technically all family members or relatives, since they are connected by blood or marriage. It is true that he gained prominence via his marriage to Beatrice, so adding her image could be understandable. Also, if there's consensus that the coat of arms is valid, fine, then the source that shows it is valid should be added to the file description. We cannot just take people's words for it. I'm still opposed to having Huang's image included, as they're not in a relationship at the moment, or the school, which he merely attended. Keivan.f^Talk 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

I hesitate after your nice reply but I would like to draw your attention to WP:ACCUSE. It creates a bad atmosphere when you do that, and doesn't help! What can help is reading the policy you want to share :)

The consensus about the CoA is clear - it is on the family pages, and has been for a time. I think the text of the grant is somewhere there as well. There are serious CoA concerned editiors and artists in Wikipedia.

I think Huang's image should be included as she is described in the article as his ex-partner and the mother of one his children, and therefore important to the article. Equally, there is no image of his birthplace, or house where he grew up, so the image of the school helps one build an image of him, and I think it preferable to the hospital where he was born.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 21:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We should take the article's length into consideration. For example, even though moving the image of the coat of arms to the right might help with the layout, it puts too many pictures in a sequence that do not necessarily correspond to the text they appear next to. Adding an image of the school and/or the hospital where he was born makes the whole thing even more 'saturated'. As for Huang's image, I'm still not convinced, because even though they share a child she is no longer his partner and she has the same level of notability as his (if not lower), unlike Beatrice who is better known compared to both of them. Keivan.f^Talk 06:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently no illustration to "Career". His school seems the best image available for that section. "Personal Life" is quite long, and there is space for Huang's image as well as York's. Getting a bit confused by your logic- previously you opposed including images of people who had their own Wikipedia page.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 00:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I am still opposed to including any images of his living relatives (and that includes spouses, partners, etc.), but the second best thing is to have a picture of the most prominent person in his life and, to be honest, the reason behind his notability. With regards to other sections, I do need to point out that we do not necessarily have to have images attached to every single section within an article. The current layout is fine, and the images of the school or Huang are not critical for the reader's understanding of the subject. Keivan.f^Talk 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Some of these images make sense to me, but some of them are distracting. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." As fresh eyes on this subject here is my analysis of the images currently on the page from the perspective of the policy I just quoted. The coat of arms makes sense as he is from a noble family and that is customary to add. the image of the Cricket stadium also makes sense to me as the article states that is what the foundation he co-founded was created for and helps show what his efforts created. The image of his wife makes sense to a degree, but is distracting. It makes sense as y'all have stated she helps make him notable, but as there is no picture of him having her images is distracting because I would expect to see an image of him or his family, not his wife, this article is about him, not her. That being said I do not feeling strongly either way of removing it or leaving it. lastly the image of Villa Mapelli Mozzi is distracting to me as it is not significant to his life, it is passingly mentioned in the article but does not add to my understand of who he is in any way, my option here would be to remove that image. Dobblesteintalk 19:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say remove them all except maybe the Gahanga Cricket Stadium one. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, images shouldn't be used as simply decorations. Some1 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)