Talk:House of Este/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spanish spelling

Please excuse me, gentlemen, but what is the Spanish spelling of the surname(It means both east and this in that language.)? --Anglius 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

Austria-Este and Franz Ferdinand

In page Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, someone had added following, which however is an apparent application of wishful thinking: "Whenever the Austria-Este line dies out, the person in line to the Austro-Hungarian throne after the current heir and all his immediate heirs becomes the Archduke of Austria-Este (the "-Este" in honor of the status as Dukes of Modena, formerly ruled by the Este family), a process of inheritance called "secundogeniture." Normally, Franz Ferdinand would have become the Duke of Modena at this time, but the duchy had been unified with the rest of Italy in 1860."

Reasons against most of that crap written above:

The reason why Franz Ferdinand began to use the NAME of Austria-Este, was the will of Francis V of Modena, where he set certain conditions to the inheritor of his personal property. The testament named Franz Ferdinand personally. It was not a clear abstract testament to "second".

Duke Francis was not constitutionally and otherwise able to stipulate anything about the succession of Duchy of Modena, which follows its own laws and original Este customs.

Secundogeniture is a more strict concept. It means an appanage to the second brother of a ruler. It is personal, not inherited by heir of the "second brother". After his death, it lapses to crown, or even before his death, it may go to the next ruler's second brother. Thus, the wording above is somewhat a bad joke.

It is said that Austria-Este is some sort of "secundogeniture" title in Austrian imperial family, however since it has continued to direct heirs of the originator of the branch, not reverting to the crown at the death of the carrier nor going to the next secundogeniture heir of the immediate imperial family, it does not fulfill the definitions of secundogeniture.

As explained, the first "adoptee" was Archduke Francis Ferdinand, b 1863 (not descended from Mary Beatrice d'Este), who took the name Austria-Este, and also in 1896 became the heir presumptive of the Austrian Empire, but was murdered 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo. Since his own children were born in morganatic marriage (Hohenberg), the Habsburgs designated his soon-to-be born great-nephew Robert, b 8 Feb 1915, second son of the future emperor Charles, as the next "adopted Austria-Este". Through his mother Zita of Parma (a great-granddaughter of Teresa of Savoy, Duchess of Lucca and Parma, who was daughter of Teresa of Modena, Queen of Sardinia, who was daughter of Mary Beatrice d'Este and Ferdinand of Austria, Duchess and Duke of Breisgau and Modena), archduke Robert happened to be a descendant of Ercole d'Este III and thus the blood of last Este dukes joined with the name Austria-Este.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (1863-1914) subsequently used the title Archduke of Austria-Este. He also in 1896 became the heir presumptive of the Austrian Empire, but was murdered before succeeding as Emperor. He had married morganatically countess Sophie Chotek, and their children were not members of Austrian Imperial House (having been born in morganatic marriage), but a separate surname and title, Hohenberg, was created for them.

When Franz Ferdinand died in June 1914, Robert was not even born. Thus, no abstract testament to the "second" was executable in his favor. If the succession would have been to the "second", there was another Austrian archduke alive at that moment in 1914, who would have been the correct heir.

Robert's "succession" to the name was only a internal agreement of Habsburgs, to put someone to carry that name.

You are mostly right, but it appears that the title Duke of Modena is used by the Archduke of Austria-Este, and not by the Duke of Bavaria, at least according to wikipedia. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Weirdness

Why is the old introduction about the Guelph line of the family (which isn't normally called Este), and then the whole article is about the Italian line? The intro should provide a summary of the article contents, not discuss a completely different subject. Some mention of the German line is in order, but it should be secondary to a discussion of the Italian branch. john k (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is because, the Guelph line was called Guelph and has its own article. Why not just make this an article about the Italian branch, and have a disambiguation page? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Austria-este

This family is not part of the house of este, even if they are related, that should be noted. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

importance

My words "most impactful upon history" were changed by someone with a Greek IP to "most importantly" and now someone with an Illinois IP has zapped that out. You might remember that last week there was a fuss about the marriage of a scion of the senior/elder branch. In view of that would you like to revert your edit?

Here's about some English d'Estes. Eddaido (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oldest Italian monarchial House?

Can they be considered the oldest Italian monarchial House? СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoax

False allegations are being repeatedly added to this article under the section, House of Este#Italy-Este and the House of Este Orioles. As I noted in the edit summary when this was deleted from the Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena article, "rv Hoax. Italy is a republic which recognizes no noble titles, thus ultra vires that 'In February 2013, the Italian Judiciary (Tribunale di Lecce) issued a decree (n° 1451/12 V.G, Reg. 028/12) which legally confirmed the legitimate right of the d’Este Orioles family to succeed to the Ducal Title of Modena and Reggio'."

These allegations about this heretofore unknown but supposedly long-lost branch of the Estes -- that the "Orioles" secretly survived in the Este legitimate male line in Sicily, that its "rightful heir" has now been discovered and legally recognized by Italy's republican government as "Antonino V, Duke of Modena, etc.", that he is Altezza Serenissima, and that he is the current legal heir to all the sovereign prerogatives of a dynasty that has been extinct for 200 years and whose descendants lost their duchy and hereditary rights when Italy became a united country 150 years ago -- has been inserted into this article, without footnotes to any reliable source nor a link to a public, reputable website that documents these claims, which are described in the article, incredulously, in these words: "...According to the Italian Judiciary (The Duchy of Modena and Reggio was located in Italy) S.A.S Don Antonino V of Este Orioles (the legitimate successor) has the sovereign prerogatives of the Jus Maiestatis and the Jus Honorum; He also holds the titles of Duke, Count and Lord of San Giuliano, Baron of San Piero and Forestavecchia and that of Principe of Castelforte; He has also an International legal entity status as agnate in collateral line of the Estense dynasty, which was Sovereign and already ruling the Duchy of Modena at the time of Ercole III 'Provvedimento di Giustizia'."

This is a HOAX, and needs to be deleted. FactStraight (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have just included the link to the Italian Regional gov of Puglia where the summay of the Judiciary decree is uploaded. Araldico69 (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Section XIV of the unrevoked Transitory and Final Dispositions of the 1948 Italian Constitution states: "I titoli nobiliari non sono riconosciuti." ("Titles of nobility are not recognized"). Law courts may not and do not exercise authority to override the national Constitution. I suggest you look up ultra vires: Either this 2013 "Judiciary decree" is a fraud or it is unconstitutional. Wikipedia would need a reliable secondary source confirming validity and applicability of this decree to accept so extraordinary a claim as legitimate, and even then consensus is needed to include all these fanciful assertions -- and I dissent. FactStraight (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Claims that a long-lost descendant of a once-upon-a-time royal family has been miraculously discovered to be living among us -- with documentation that "proves" his or her claim -- didn't begin with Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia aka Anna Anderson. It is such an old and common trick that Wikipedia even has a section on it in its List of impostors, called "False royal heritage claims". I am sure that the new-on-the-scene "His Serene Highness Antonino V, Duke of Modena" will soon be added to the official list. FactStraight (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Key terms: 1. Hoax means "a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth" 2. Pronouncement: the act of pronouncing, declaring, or uttering formally 3. Defamation is a spoken or written expression which is deemed to harm the reputation of an individual and proved to be false.

The Hoax claim is false and maybe considered defamatory. I have cited and posted the summary of a Judicial Pronouncement (12 pages) of the Italian Tribunale di Lecce; giving also the exact numbers of the Judicial Pronouncement to trace it. This Pronouncement exactly explains what written in the section. I also provided the link of the official website of the Puglia Gov Region where it is uploaded; so people can go directly to retrieve it without any medium. Now do I need to explain the difference from a book source (written by individuals which could not be objective) and a formal JUDICIAL Pronouncement having the force of law because originated from a process of Legal scrutiny? Really?

In terms of reliable sources; this Pronouncement is a reliable source (Cf. The Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_2006.pdf )

I have again uploaded the link for scrutiny

http://www.regione.puglia.it/documents/10192/10774613/TRIBUNALE.pdf/def6927f-b70e-4cd3-b864-7b8e37ee42d8;jsessionid=C9A0ED98669B6D826B95E0C1D2F12789?version=1.1

Anyone can use Google translator and understand what it is written. I Trust I clarified the matter.ARALDICO69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araldico69 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You have repeatedly edited Wikipedia to state that a court of law in the Republic of Italy has decreed that someone named "Antonino Orioles" is the current legal heir to the House of Este's sovereign Duchy of Modena, and as such is entitled in modern law to acknowledgement as "Duke of Modena" (Duca di Modena), "His Most Serene Highness" (Altezza Serenissima), and, as such, to the rights and prerogatives of sovereignty (the so-called Jus Maiestatis and Jus Honorum). In 2013!!!.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editing standards: According to our no original research principle, secondary sources are preferred to original sources, precisely because original sources may not explain how their content applies in a specific, relevant context. This is clearly expressed both in the Manual of Style and as part of Wikipedia's fundamental policy ban against original research ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.").

The "context" here is that since 1860 the Duchy of Modena has not existed, having been dissolved as a state and incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, and is now an integral part of the Republic of Italy. The "context" is that since 1948 Italy's constitution forbids the nation from recognizing titles of nobility. The "context" is that the last known legitimate male of the House of Este, Ercole III d'Este, Duke of Modena died in 1803, leaving the duchy to his daughter, her husband and their descendants, the House of Austria-Este, whose last known legitimate, agnatic male was Francesco V, Duke of Modena who died in exile in 1875 (although Ercole's article has now also been altered to include the "Orioles" allegations). Therefore, the claim that in 2013 an Italian court validated a secret document signed by the sonless Duke Ercole in 1798 purporting to acknowledge his alleged Orioles male-line relative as the rightful heir to the duchy (contrary to the marriage contract and treaty he had signed with his son-in-law's mother, the Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa in 1780) and recognized this hitherto unknown "Antonino Orioles" as a legitimate member of the extinct House of Este, as a Duke and as entitled to rights of sovereignty is an exceptional assertion that requires exceptional, secondary sources, beyond the alleged 1798 and 2013 primary sources that have been cited to justify his titles and claims.

Despite my request, no such reliable secondary sources have been provided. Therefore, I suspect that the allegations inserted in this article on the "Orioles" are part of an elaborate hoax, similar to those listed in False royal heritage claims as reportedly perpetrated by modern impostors like Alexis Brimeyer, Pierre Plantard or Terence Francis MacCarthy. These claims to be the long-lost princely heir to a usurped realm, as substantiated by newly-found "legal" documents, are not only not royal -- they are downright common. FactStraight (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Court Sentences are allowed in wikipedia (Cf. other in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Other ) I suggest you are careful in using the term Hoax as you can be liable for defamation ( it is easy to trace ip addresses by the police).I request you to cancel immediately the Hoax accusation as it is clear defamatory. If you are so convinced please reveal your name ( this is my email societyfm@outlook.com)and take the responsibilty about what you are writing;otherwise you are not credible as you hide behind a nickname. I started to think you are not a genuine reviewer and you have an agenda.ARALDICO69

Araldico69 I suggest you be careful in using threats of defamation. Users are under no obligation to provide you with personal details. Greyjoy ^talk 10:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely but a person protected by anonymity cannot defame people in a widely read internationally forum; so I have the right to go to my solicitor and start a defamation process in Italy as this is the competent forum. After that the police will find out the identity of this person (this has occurred several times for tripadvisors fake reviewers). I clarified the source, provided where to locate it; the Judicial pronouncement was also linked. I did everything reasonable; now I ask that this hoax thread is deleted as this was NOT a Hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araldico69 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, well. This attempt to claim that "Antonino" of the House of Orioles has been acknowledged by the Republic of Italy as Duke of Modena and Principe of Castelforte, and as such is entitled to sovereign rights, is not the first time that the Orioles have been the subject of discussion about hoaxes on English Wikipedia, as can be seen here. The claim at the discussion of proposed Deletion of the House of Orioles article mentions that the originator of that article, Alec Smithson is believed to be one who originated a long list of articles advancing the notability and nobility of various "houses". So this hoax is connected to others I have previously called out as such here. While the quality of Araldico69's English suggests that he is probably not the same person as initiated that hoax, it is unclear yet whether he is a dupe or an accomplice. But recent uploaded allegations to this article are looking more and more like part of one long extended hoax that we on English Wikipedia have been fighting at least since 2015. FactStraight (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok lets try again;

1. I need to thank the admin for unblocking me; I was frustrated by the continuous accusations -that I violated not knowing the rule of "Threat of defamation" - again thank you!

2. I try to keep things civil and simple so no offence. You do not have clue about Italian laws and the issue with nobility. In all fairness I did not have a clue as well; until I started to research my family and their titles..but I am digressing. Before the unification (under the Savoy) there were several monarchies/Pope. These Houses have retained the Jus Majestatis and Fons Honorum as long as they never suffered Debellatio) here there is the explanation by one of this former dynasties (De Medici. http://www.de-medici.com/comunita-granducale-medicea/fons-honorum/il-concetto-giuridico-di-sovranita-delle-case-gia-regnanti-1) If you read you will find that the article lists FEW of them (meaning there are more). What does this mean? It means that these houses can in theory create nobles and certainly can bestow knighthood. This is not ILLEGAL; it is illegal if they sell them. You are right in saying the nobility in Italy is not recognised/abolished but this does not mean is FORBIDDEN; it means only that the state does not care and protect titles and titles cannot be used for passports etc... Quite a few of these dynasties -to protect themselves- have used the Judiciary. In Italy ironically the only way for the Nobility titles to be acknowledged and genealogies to be verified is via judiciary...

3. The Este Orioles House is made up by two families (the Este that migrated to Sicily) and the Orioles that have an important past; I am not sure where you got your sources but you cannot deny the evidence: These are only few books that speak about the Orioles family

http://www.comune.sanpieropatti.me.it/Libro%20Argeri/371-386%20Antiche%20Famiglie.pdf. (link of the official site of the Town Sanpiero Patti)

A very old book (1655)commissioned by the senate of the city of Palermo write in details about the heritage and nobility of the Orioles Family. The book is titled " Teatro Genologico delle famiglie nobili titolate feudatarie".The book is written by Dott. D. Filadelfo.

the book "Royal families of Sicilies" write about the Orioles at pag 51. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l2AIDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=famiglia+nobile+orioles&source=bl&ots=91wQ8-pv_t&sig=hvCW3WMFgX981qwIx8qjz_cJj-s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIhP3_37PdAhXKOcAKHXWKDvsQ6AEwDHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=famiglia%20nobile%20orioles&f=false

4) There are quite few sources mentioning also the Este in Sicily one of them is the "the Storia Illustrata" of the Mondatori Editore in the issue 255 of February 1973; it says that in Tortorici since 1586 there was a collateral branch of the Este of Modena. The Judicial Pronouncement just clarifies this; having seen all the evidence (history, archive records of birth; death, marriages and other documents validated by officials, the Provvedimento di Giustizia of Ercole 3 etc..)the Judiciary process has ascertained that A. Este Orioles descends from Antonino Este Orioles who received the Provvedimento di Giustizia and all the prerogatives connected to it. Does this means that by law in Italy everyone must refer to him as "Sua Altezza serenissima" ? NO, it means that who still considers nobility something important, for courtesy (it is a choice) can refer to him in this way. NO ONE is a Duke/Count/Prince for the Italian State ; they are all Signori.

5. The Admins can control this; you have deleted several times my section in several places; where my section/information was pertinent; you did this without having the courtesy to discuss this with me.

Now, Wikipedia should be based on facts:

a) Did the Head of the Este Orioles Family receive a Provvedimento di Giustizia from Ercole III countersigned by the Marquis Rangone? YES; it is a fact proved by the Judicial Pronouncement

b)Is Antonino V (or if you wish call him Antonino 5.0 ; call him as you like) the direct descendant of Antonino 1.0. YES; fact

c) Does Antonino 5.0 claim the Duchy of Modena? NO; as it is not an idiot; the Duchy of Modena does not exist anymore and anyway is a collateral agnate of the Este family of Modena. However as everyone else is proud of his family history. If you go on google you will see that in many places including the "Nobility Scene" is refered as courtesy as S.A.S or Duke or Don and is involved in charity work

d)Was this section pertinent to be included in the Pages " HOUSE OF ESTE" DUKE OF MODENA AND ERCOLE III? I am afraid YES; because has historic value ( actually your ignorance about this proves that needs to be included) why do not write it? Because you do not like it?

Look..I can understand you do not like this or you think the Judiciary Pronouncement is silly or weird..but believe me is not against the Constitution ; in his driving licence or passport I bet it is written Dott. A. Este Orioles... What I do not like (and I stop here) is that you immediately called this a Hoax when it is not; again everyone reading can find the Pronouncement; if you wish to see the Provvedimento di Giustizia just go to his webpage and with a Google translator you will understand.Click the links of the book I provided; check Internet. BTW in Italy it is a crime to forge documents and this has also passed the legal scrutiny. So I ask you please stop deleting this section. I am very busy I will not upload them now but when I have time sometime this week I will re-write them.

Any questions I am here to answer ; by the way I am not a "dupe" nor a hoaxer nor A. Este Orioles. Regards Written by Araldico69 Araldico69 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Araldico69 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Orioles hoax

The hoax tag had been removed from this article 16 September 2018, in response to deletion of the recently added section, House of Este#Italy-Este and the House of Este Orioles, on the correct grounds that it was not properly sourced. That section has been restored as of 18 September 2018 and is being embellished, so the hoax tag will be restored. There are three grounds for that tag which will need to be properly addressed before I will agree that the article has been appropriately edited and does not reflect allegations known to be misleading:

1. The article as edited makes several assertions which imply that a person named "Antonino" is a member of and the head, by male primogeniture, of a family called "Este Orioles", which is and has been recognized by a law court of the Republic of Italy to be the legal and legitimate heirs-male of the House of Este, and as such, the legal Duke of Modena, Prince of Castelforte, etc., and as such Antonino is entitled to and recognized as exercising the sovereign rights once wielded by the sovereign Dukes of Modena.
   1. Yet the information provided is not cited to reliable sources which substantiate that the "Este Orioles" are legitimate, male-line descendants of the Estensi, let alone descendants or heirs of the Dukes of Modena: Completely absent is documentation of how precisely the "Este Orioles" descend agnatically from the dynasty's founder, Fulco I d’Este.
   2. Instead we are told that "someone" belonging to the Este family migrated from northern Italy where they reigned to Tortirici, Sicily, settled there, and that over several subsequent generations his descendants held various prominent positions and/or were attributed the honorific "Magnifico". Yet their genealogical descent from that immigrant to Sicily and from Fulco is not documented and apparently not known.
   3. Instead, it is implied no such documentation is needed or relevant because in 1798 the last known legitimate male member of the House of Este, Duke Ercole III of Modena, signed a document recognizing someone living in Sicily who claimed to be "Antonino d'Este Orioles", not only as a collateral relation in the legitimate male-line of the Duke's, but as his rightful heir, whom he proceeded to recognize as a member of his own House of Este, as Duke, as entitled to enjoy and exercise the Duke's own prerogatives of sovereignty (including specifically the style of "Serene Highness"), the right to act as an enthroned sovereign and fount of honour (i.e., to ennoble commoners, to grant hereditary titles and to confer membership in Ducal Orders of Knighthood -- a right which, we are told, the current "Duke", Antonino V, retains and may freely exercise), and to choose at will future successors to the Duchy of Modena and its sovereignty, should his own Este Orioles line die out.
   4. This was all somehow duly signed by Duke Ercole, then promptly registered as a 1798 Provvedimento di Giustizia ("justice decree") in a regional Italian court of law -- despite the fact that Ercole was neither in Modena nor in Sicily to actually review the submitted proofs, if any, or to sign any such decree because he was in exile in Venice, having been driven out of Modena by General Bonaparte. An uprising in the duchy followed, abolishing the monarchy, deposing the Duke and soon joining, along with several other former fiefs, the new Cisalpine Republic, complete with a republican constitution, all by 1797. Moreover, while he had still been ruling Modena, Ercole had signed a negotiated convention in 1753, accepted by the Imperial Diet in 1771, and co-signed by the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, by Maria Theresa of Austria as Head of the House of Habsburg, and King George III of Great Britain (because Este is a junior branch of the House of Welf). That treaty, recognizing that the House of Este was on the verge of extinction, decreed that Modena would be inherited after Ercole by an archduke of Austria who would marry his daughter (and that archduke's descendants would henceforth rule Modena, as a secundogeniture of the House of Habsburg). Since Modena was a Salic fief of the Holy Roman Empire, only the Emperor could approve its transfer to a new heir: no evidence has been presented that the original Duchy of Modena of 1454 was heritable by collaterals whose legitimate, male-line descent from a prior duke has not been proved). Regardless of any action taken by Ercole d'Este while in exile, Article 118 of the Treaty of Campo Formio of 17 Oct 1797, signed by the Holy Roman Emperor, formally recognized the cession of Modena to the Cisalpine Republic. So Ercole lost Modena, but was compensated with the throne of the Duchy of Breisgau in Germany, which he abdicated to his son-in-law, Archduke Ferdinand in 1803. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna took back the Breisgau and restored the previous treaty agreement, so Modena went to Ercole’s Habsburgs descendants.
   5. Ercole lived until 1823, but not a word was ever known until this week on Wikipedia, that he had allegedly, unilaterally cancelled all official treaties about the fate of Modena by handing it over to a long-lost, alleged relative back in 1798. Thus, far more detail and proper sourcing for this purportedly "legal" cession of the inheritance of the Duchy to the unheard-of family of "Este Orioles" is needed. Yet there are virtually no proper footnotes in this article documenting that this "alternate reality" transpired, and especially, that the male-line of the House of Este did not end with Duke Ercole III. Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in or publish original research -- yet that is exactly what we are doing with the “Este Orioles”.
2. This sudden claim is inextricably linked with an Alec Smithson hoax about the Orioles family that Wikipedia discovered and has been fending off since 2015. Yet if this new version of their historical importance is to be believed, it is merely a coincidence that these Orioles now emerge, out of Italy's hundreds of historical noble families, complete with never-before-heard-of claims and documents, as the lawful heirs of a once-upon-a-time sovereign duchy whose history is otherwise well-documented without them.
   1. This new claim to Modena comes with the same claim to be the current "Prince of Castelforte" which was attributed to the Orioles in the first hoax. Such hoaxes arise because, if believed, they muster English Wikipedia's popularity and authority to validate for wannabes their claims to such styles as "Prince", Serene Highness, the right to act as an enthroned sovereign (Jus Maiestatis) or as a fount of honour (Jus Honorum, i.e., to ennoble commoners, grant hereditary titles and confer membership in Knightly Orders of Chivalry). These "rights", we are told, now lawfully belong to the current "Duke" Antonino V, to exercise freely. We recognize this scenario in the tales of so many now-exposed fake pretenders of recent years, impostors like Alexis Brimeyer, Pierre Plantard or Terence Francis MacCarthy.
   2. We are told that this new branch of the Estes are legally named "Orioles" because of a marriage of one of these Sicilian Estes to a female Orioles -- but with no details or evidence of any historical significance. But this revival of that name is consistent with the 2015 hoax, in which members of the "House of Orioles" (and the related "House of Natoli") were promoted in dozens of articles as a newly discovered princely and sovereign family of southern Italy. So after we trimmed the illustrious "House of Orioles" down to the minor Orioles family, we should not now be surprised that someone has discovered a new excuse to elevate them back to exalted status through affiliation with a known dynasty, the Estes, which was never mentioned in conjunction with the many 2015 Orioles edits, despite the fact that the Italian court had supposedly recognized their "ducal" and "sovereign" status back in 2013.
   3. The notion that these twin Orioles "dynasty" claims are un-related is simply not credible. It seems far more likely that the new "Este Orioles" claim is being put forth by or with the previous hoaxster, Alec Smithson or, willy-nilly, by meat puppets returning to insinuate the same family's hyped-genealogy into Wikipedia to flatter their family's vanity. Or maybe done by hired hacks (some of those in the False titles of nobility racket conduct paid genealogical or heraldic "research" for clients eager for noble ancestors or membership in knightly orders, and issue a "certificate" of their findings upon payment of research or membership "fees". Getting their clients' exalted claims recorded in Wikipedia, especially English Wikipedia, can be considered a coup -- as appears to have been the motivation behind the elaborate Esperanza de Sarachaga hoax, which took a dedicated Wikipedia editor three months to expose in 2015)? As I've said, based on writing styles I doubt that Araldica69 is Alec Smithson. But the overlap in their agendas, both insistently portraying the same little-known noble Sicilian family as entitled to modern princely status in English Wikipedia articles, cries out for a credible explanation.
   4. Couple that with the allegations being made in the article itself -- that a famous dynasty of history universally believed extinct for 200 years has now been declared to have secretly survived and been recognized by the Italian Republic's law courts of the 21st century as entitled to royal titles and sovereign prerogatives in the 21st century, and that history is thereby being changed, not in academia, but on Wikipedia -- that scenario so strains credulity that until it is adequately explained and reliably documented, it arouses the suspicion that a hoax is, once again, being perpetrated on these pages.
   5. So I wonder how does Araldica69, so new to English Wikipedia, explain that he has taken up the cause here of the very same family's claim-to-fame after the Orioles' pretensions were exposed, debunked and shrunken right here only three years ago -- and the author of that abuse, who used many different accounts, is now banned across all Wikipedias? This is no coincidence. Yet unless called out, it is likely to happen again, once we block this effort as we did the last.
3. My final objection to the Orioles edits remains the most important: Exceptional claims require exceptionally strong sources. We are repeatedly told to go to the Este Orioles's private website in Italian to verify the accuracy of that family's assertions on Wikipedia. The other "sources" are spotty and incomplete, failing to connect the dots to show how they legitimately descend in male line from the Dukes of Modena family, why they were completely unknown to history until this week, and how any current law court of the Republic of Italy would or could recognize them as lawful dukes, highnesses, and possessors of "royal prerogative" today?
   1. We are referred to primary documents of 1798 and 2013 to render all questions moot, to silence all doubts and to legitimate nearly every allegation. But a review of other royal impostors shows how readily "official" documents can be procured that appear to prove the legitimacy of a long-lost royal origin (see lots of examples at False royal heritage claims). We cannot be sure of the purpose or context of these primary docs: do they indicate that a particular ancestral claim was merely "filed and received" by some clerk in a court in 2013, and no more? Do they give a false impression of being enforceable because the alleged 1798 document appeared to be genuine to someone shown it in 2013, regardless of its actual content? Maybe its history is that of a "grant" obtained from a perhaps disgruntled prince in exile from a duchy he had long ago given away by treaty to relatives whom he felt had failed to defend his interests and so no longer deserved to be his heirs?
   2. Henri d'Orléans, then son of the Orleanist pretender brought a lawsuit in 1987 against the Legitimist pretender, Luis Alfonso de Borbón, for misuse of the title, "Duke of Anjou", which once belonged to France's royal family. The court of the French Republic threw out the case on the grounds that neither "prince" had any legal claim to the title in modern France, and that it was beyond the court's authority -- and the nation's interest -- to determine who is, today, the "rightful" heir to obsolete royalist claims. Why would not Italy's law courts declare likewise, given that it is unconstitutional to recognize noble titles in Italy since 1948? These Orioles allegations and primary documents cry out for secondary sources to contextualize and analyze them for correct use. Given how exceptional are the claims put forth in these edits, I must call for them not to be used as sources for allegations in English Wikipedia until the appropriate secondary sources clarify their implications. FactStraight (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I cannot say more than this. A formal pronouncement of the Italian Judiciary (aimed to ascertain the truth of specific claims) is the most clearest and authoritative form of reference. You insist using the term Hoax which I find inappropriate and offensive. Let's then leaving the readers to decide if it is a Hoax or not. If it was a Hoax I would have not lost so MUCH of my time replying to you thinking you were a reasonable person. You have showed that you have not a clue on how the Italian legal system work and you do not read; you also seem not to know the Italian language; so how you can judge if a document is forged or not! I included lots of references (readers see section above this); probably is the most referenced section in Wikipedia thanks to you.

In summary, I appreciate that finally you did not delete the sections (as what you did before without proofs- in my opinion - was vandalism); so thank you.

However, You are an anonymous reader who calls himself "Factsright" (in this case wrong nickname); you have the same gravitas as I have. As far as I know Wikipedia is not your property and you are not a judge. As this section is pertinent with the House of Este and Ercole III should be included even if you do not like it.

I cannot reply every day ; I am very busy and I tell you

1)if you would had not deleted this section so many times; 2) if you would had not called this a Hoax(offensive for me that I wrote it) I would probably had given up as I do not have time for this.

But I hate injustice; I dislike this type of behavior; I am now doing this for principle. If you are convinced that is a Hoax then it would be more appropriate to use the dispute resolution of wikipedia than to write endlessly. As a person is innocent until proven guilty and you challenge what I have stated ; if you say it is a hoax show the proof that:

1) the Ercole III provvedimento di giustizia is forged (this check was done in the legal process and you know the result, which I understand you do not like; you do not have any expertise to do so) 2) the judicial pronouncement is a fake document and was not issued by an Italian Tribunale (city of Lecce 2017). Contact them and ask for a copy 3) after having translated the judicial pronouncement what I wrote in Italics is not true.

About the historical arguments you developed; I am not a hiatorian; I wrote this because it was important to write it and anyway I am afraid this is not a historic discussion; if you would have started this issue saying I disagree about the pronouncement I would have respected your opinion; this drama has started because you used the term HOAX (deleting the section at least 3 times) accusing me to produce false documents and that the pronouncement was fake and against the constitution ; The hoax claim is yours; you need to prove it.

Wikipedia does not allow threat of defamation I respect this and I will not do it; but I can guarantee you if this would have happened in a different setting I would have certainly gained some money from you for my next holidays  :-D)

Araldico69 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not said that you are a hoaxster, nonetheless I suspect that a hoax is being perpetrated and that your edits, in part, reflect it, although I do not yet know how that has happened or who is responsible: I think it is entirely possible that you have been duped or co-opted. Still, you continue to deflect the issues under consideration to make this discussion of editing about you and your feelings. That is unfortunate, but that is your choice. Instead you might explain the matter which continues to concern me and others (I am not the only editor who has reverted your claims from this article as "unsourced"): how has it come to be that you introduce in a Wikipedia article a history-changing allegation about the recent recognition by Italy's republican law court of the current right to a noble title and royal prerogatives of the very same obscure Italian family which Alec Smithson was permanently blocked from Wikipedia for, among other things, trying to promote here three years ago? The allegation itself is just too incredible and the coincidence too improbable not to arouse doubts that someone is knowingly promoting an agenda on this encyclopedia by distorting facts.

Regardless, I have made it clear that there are gaps in your citations that fail to document how the "Orioles" are descended in the legitimate male line from the House of Este, on which their claim to current ducal titles and sovereign prerogatives rest. Worse, the documentation you do provide focuses on primary documents to make a highly controversial and novel claim. This is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have restored the hoax tag to warn readers of the dubious content now included in the article, and to give you or others time and opportunity to address the stated concerns and to fix the problem. Meanwhile, you should familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia: I have left your edits in the article temporarily out of courtesy and to avoid edit warring. But a consensus is needed for any material to remain in Wikipedia articles, and you don't have it because I object to the exceptional claims and inadequate sources provided, and therefore those edits will eventually be removed. Alternatively, you can provide further information on the issues that have been raised that might contribute to a compromise, allowing continued inclusion of some of the information you would like to see in the article. Again, your choice. FactStraight (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok

First a note. I am not a Historian so I cannot debate on historic issues but this is not the problem because if you would have called the talk section "Controversial decision of the Italian Judiciary, I would perhaps debated with you or called someone else to address your points. If readers "read" since the beginning you said:

1) the whole story was a Hoax 2) the Judicial pronouncement was a fake and so on...

You dispute this not for Historic-nobiliar laws reasons(which they do not exist by the way in Italy) but your reason was that all this was rubbish. Actually you missed a good point the question instead should be why did Ercole III send such document to an agnate collateral branch of the Este Family? I asked this A. Este Orioles and this does not have a clue. I think that he kept contact with them and wanted to leave it to someone "Italian" (Italy did not exist at the time meaning someone not so different from him); this though is an explanation of a non historian; I am not an expert.

In Italy there are many of these judicial pronouncements on several former monarchy houses; I mentioned one by the Italian Cassation Court; all these pronouncements also state that even if former royal houses do not rule a country anymore they still possess jus Majestatis and jus honorum; so in other words if The Savoia decide to make "factsright" Count they can do it; it would not have any legal value but honorific one. This is possible because this power derives from them and more than 1000 years of history is with them and cannot be taken away.

Now this is my COMPROMISE; you have realised now that the Judicial pronouncement is true and I tell you more is valid also internationally. You have also realised that the Provvedimento di Giustizia of Ercole III is also true because experts during the legal process have examined it and on that base (the pronouncement is clear on this) they have issue their sentenza which you do not like.

So Lets forget all the drama erase this Hoax thing (I would never do so; instead you did for my section); please remember actions have consequences and A. Este Orioles has been unfairly represented as a Hoaxer; would you like if someone will do this to you or your family? how will you feel and this on WIKIPEDIA!

Instead create a new thread saying "controversial decision of the Italian Judiciary or mistake of the Italian judiciary" whatever you wish because THIS is what you do NOT like. I will NOT challenge what you write providing that is not offensive (hoax stuff.) and that is referred to the Judiciary.

If you wish to have a translation of the Provvedimento di giustizia I will do it for you (I am a bit busy now but by end of this month I can send it to you) and we close this frankly absurd thing. So you have contested the Judiciary ( as a man of law I always respect the Judiciary Pronouncement but sometimes of course I can disagree); I have written this section; Wikipedia has an important news about the House of Este which is supported by a Judicial pronouncement.

In the future I will write a page on the Este Orioles House but just historic things nothing about pretension to he throne of the Duchy of Modena

By the way the continuous edits are because

1) English is my second Language and I write always quickly as I am very busy with my work 2) I am a newbie about Wikipedia; I am learning I was not even able to sign ; so I make mistakes and then try to correct them

Best Araldico69 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The only purpose of this talk page is to improve the Wikipedia article, House of Este. It is not to expunge views or comments that editors dislike. I wish for this article to be improved, and I hope in that process we can work together cooperatively and productively. But my focus here is the accuracy and appropriateness of information provided to readers in the article, not appeasement of anyone's feelings about the word "hoax", the use of which I have explained, along with the concerns I believe need to be addressed to justify removing it, which I've outlined in considerable detail. If in that spirit compromise can be achieved to make this a better article, by all means let us proceed. Please re-read: I have not said that "the whole story was a Hoax." I said that I believe that "False allegations are being repeatedly added", some of which you have since removed, some you have edited to make less non-credible, but some of which remain in the article and still need to be addressed. Nor did I say "the Judicial pronouncement was a fake". I believe that it is possible (although I remain unconvinced as yet because of the internal conflicts raised by some of the declaration's terminology) that the 1798 and 2013 court documents that you have cited may be authentic, in the sense that they may indeed contain the words they are alleged to contain (thank you, but I do not need a translation) and may indeed have been publicly released by officials of an Italian court of law. That does not establish that they are reliable sources sufficient to substantiate the allegations you have made in the article. As I see it, the problems are these:

1. There are two relevant primary documents, one of which is a 2013 statement issued by a regional court of law in the Republic of Italy and which has been cited in this article, with a link you provided, as the source for the statement that 'In February 2013, the Italian Judiciary (Tribunale di Lecce) issued a decree (n° 1451/12 V.G, Reg. 028/12) which legally confirmed the legitimate right of the d’Este Orioles family to succeed to the Ducal Title of Modena and Reggio'." You explained this means "...According to the Italian Judiciary (The Duchy of Modena and Reggio was located in Italy) S.A.S Don Antonino V of Este Orioles (the legitimate successor) has the sovereign prerogatives of the Jus Maiestatis and the Jus Honorum; He also holds the titles of Duke, Count and Lord of San Giuliano, Baron of San Piero and Forestavecchia and that of Principe of Castelforte; He has also an International legal entity status as agnate in collateral line of the Estense dynasty, which was Sovereign and already ruling the Duchy of Modena at the time of Ercole III 'Provvedimento di Giustizia'." The other document, to which I can post a link to the article, is Section XIV of the unrevoked Transitory and Final Dispositions of the 1948 Italian Constitution, which states: "I titoli nobiliari non sono riconosciuti." ("Titles of nobility are not recognized"). In my humble opinion, these two documents contradict one another: both cannot literally be true: Law courts are an institution under the authority of the nation, and they may not and do not exercise authority to override the national Constitution. Although the second document was not cited in the article, I was convinced that whoever edited the first document link into the article was well aware of Italy's republican law on titles. That person was you, and you later acknowledged this point when you wrote, on this page, " b) Is Antonino V (or if you wish call him Antonino 5.0 ; call him as you like) the direct descendant of Antonino 1.0. YES; fact c) Does Antonino 5.0 claim the Duchy of Modena? NO; as it is not an idiot; the Duchy of Modena does not exist anymore and anyway is a collateral agnate of the Este family of Modena. However as everyone else is proud of his family history. If you go on google you will see that in many places including the "Nobility Scene" is refered as courtesy as S.A.S or Duke or Don..." Yet this important clarification -- that "Antonino Oreoles" is not currently the Duke of Modena in the law of Italy -- is on this talk page but not included in the article, making the statement about his being duke etc misleading, since the assertion purports to be based on the 2013 declaration of an Italian law court. Upon realizing that the person who is now claiming to be the hitherto unknown "Duke of Modena, Prince of Castelforte" also claims to be a member of the same Sicilian noble family, the "House of Orioles", that was so heavily promoted as a major noble house on Wikipedia three years ago, I suspected that this is no coincidence, that this is somehow the work of Alec Smithson, whose article on the "House of Orioles" was nominated for deletion as a hoax and drastically reduced in length, and for which, along with other disruptions, Smithson remains banned from editing Wikipedia. While I am not convinced that your edits have not been connected to or influenced by Smithson (perhaps through "Antonino Orioles", whom you say you have been in touch with?), I am much more concerned about getting misleading information out of Wikipedia. Otherwise, we must continue to label it in a way so that people who read it are warned that it may not be reliable.
2. The other concern in this matter that made me suspect a hoax is the astounding information alleged in this Provvedimento di Giustizia, quite aside from the noble titles and royal prerogatives it says are due to Antonino Orioles. The decree also claims that the House of Este did not become extinct in 1823 as is universally believed, that there is a legitimate living male line branch of the family that has remained unknown to the world, to historians and to genealogists for 500 years, and the decree implies that the Duchy of Modena never lawfully belonged to the Imperial archdukes who ruled it from 1815 to 1859, and that the the title that is now borne by the brother-in-law of the King of Belgium, Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este, as nominal heir to the dynasty's name and fortune is fraudulent. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, whereas this dynastic discovery, if valid, would be of enormous interest to historians and others -- yet it is being revealed here on Wikipedia instead of in a peer-reviewed academic journal, doctoral dissertation or television broadcast. Yes, we have to be sure that this is not a hoax...
3. Therefore, it seems to me that the best and usual way to resolve contradictory primary sources is to search for and quote the assessments of secondary sources which can clarify for us as editors and for Wikipedia's readers the meaning of the two documents as written, and how they should be interpreted relative to one another. Unfortunately, since the Provvedimento di Giustizia was only issued in 2013, there are not yet any independent reliable sources which we can quote or cite to explain how to interpret this matter. That means either the 2013 decree cannot be used as a source or it can only be used in an extremely narrow way, and needs to be balanced off by quoting the 1948 Italian Republic's constitution, lest readers be misled. FactStraight (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to compromise; to discuss, to explain, to offer the wikipedia DR and you still insist.Any reader can read since the beginning and see how patient I was. You also contradict yourself and your earlier posts.

The page has the following wikipedia warning and this because of you: "The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content may constitute a hoax." IT IS NOT A HOAX!!!!

As you have titled the section HOAX; the proof to demonstrate this is on you. The admins of wikipedia have read all the talk and I hope they have understood that this is not a hoax and for some reason not sure why you continue having this bizarre behaviour.

I cannot let an anonymous person to bully me via internet; from now on unless you demonstrate that:

1) the Ercole III provvedimento di giustizia is forged (this check was done in the legal process and you know the result, which I understand you do not like; you do not have any expertise to do so);

2) the judicial pronouncement is a fake document and was not issued by an Italian Tribunale (city of Lecce 2017). Contact them and ask for a copy

3) after having translated the judicial pronouncement what I wrote in Italics is not true.

THE ABOVE 3 POINTS ARE YOUR ALLEGATIONS SINCE THE BEGINNING

I will only paste and copy this comment
I will paste and copy the section if you continue to erase it 

if you delete the sections I hope you are blocked by wikipedia as doing an act of VANDALISM as It is evident that this is not a Hoax and the section is worth and pertinent to be included in the pages "House of Este and Ercole III"

You are not a reasonable person... Araldico69 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ps

1.you have mentioned an idiot ( only in this way we can call someone who wastes his time creating Hoax on wikipedia) Alec smithson , I did some brief investigation and found this link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Alec_Smithson but no mention of the Orioles family. Hoaxers to be more credible mix real info with lies; have you ever thought that has used the Orioles family because is a REAL Sicilian noble family? It is enough to do a search on google and see that is a real family; I have also provided links; but you can always contact the demographic office of the town of Tortorici and asks to send you some info of the Orioles? I did it for my ancestors in another town ; these are famiglie notabili -known families - the historic archive of the towns have many documents.

2.I also need to clarify something; it is my understanding that you referred to the Tribunale di Lecce as a" regional" court. This is incorrect in Italy the Courts are State courts please see this link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Italy

The court of cassation is the highest court possible but it only enters in action if the judicial pronouncement of the Tribunale is appealed. In the case object of our discussion this did NOT occur so it is FINAL.

3. You wrote " Unfortunately, since the Provvedimento di Giustizia was only issued in 2013" The Provvedimento di Giustizia ( or letter patent) was issued in 1798 by Ercole III; you are referring to the first judicial Pronouncement that was issued in 2013 and became final in 2017. This Provvedimento di Giustizia has been known for ages since Antonino 1.0; and it is in fact giving the prerogatives of the Ducal title to the Este Orioles family. I wrote this because is a FACT ( however Antonino V does not claim any right on something does not exist anymore) The judicial scrutiny occurred because a person like you claimed that Antonino 5.0 did not have any right including jus majestatis and honorum gained via the Provvedimento di Giustizia. Antonino 5.0 then asked the judiciary to ascertain the truth and to verify his claims andnthe provvedimento di giustizia. You know the outcome...

Araldico69 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In the link you provide above about the permanent blocking of the user account of Alec Smithson, it is noted, "This account was indefinitely blocked here on 20 December 2015 and globally locked on 23 January 2016 for long-term cross-wiki abuse (indef blocked on 10 Wikipedias). The account creates articles which are either hoaxes or about real people and places but with patently false information and spurious references." Although you note that this comment does not specifically mention the Orioles family, in fact during the height of Smithson's mass edits falsifying Wikipedia articles, he created the article "House of Orioles" here, which was thitherto unknown to English Wikipedia and was then twice nominated for deletion as a hoax, eventually being re-named from "House of Orioles" to "Orioles family" and reduced in size by more than half to eliminate the false and exaggerated information he had included about an apparently real family -- about whose existence, however, there are minimal reliable sources.

Because it strikes me as a very unlikely coincidence that the obscure Orioles have been the object of unrelated efforts by two English Wikipedia editors within a three year period, both of which happen to vastly enhance the Orioles historical significance and current prominence, and that the most recent edits affiliate these Orioles with a claim to be the long-lost heirs-at-law, according to the Republic of Italy(!), to a current Italian dukedom and to sovereign prerogatives, I am concerned that some part of these Orioles efforts are part of a hoax. I have explained at length on this page why the claims put forth about the Orioles Estes are so far-fetched and unprecedented that raising this suspicion to induce greater scrutiny is reasonable and responsible to protect the encyclopedia from being used as a vehicle for outlandish claims inadequately sourced and/or for original research. I have also outlined how I think these concerns can and should be addressed to obtain removal of the hoax tag.

You have made it clear that you are determined to make this article and this talk page the focus of your efforts to attack and remove the "hoax" label because you consider it a personal affront that you refuse to tolerate, even though that is not what Wikipedia articles or talk pages are about, and despite the fact that I have not accused you of being a hoaxster. You continue to misconstrue Wikipedia rules as meaning that a hoax tag is an accusation directed at a person, rather than at article content, and that I bear the burden of "proving" that the hoax is "true" or of removing it, ignoring the tag's own wording, "The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content may constitute a hoax", and the fact that I refrained from proposing the speedy deletion process of "{db-hoax} template" because I did not believe such drastic action is merited given the relevant uncertainties.

Nonetheless, you have declared above that unless I withdraw the hoax tag and comply with your terms, you will henceforth only respond to my ongoing efforts here to resolve this matter through the discussion and consensus process with the following, "I will only paste and copy this comment...I will paste and copy the section if you continue to erase it" I take you at your word, and accept your assessment that further communication here is futile.

I have restored the title to this talk page section which I created and labelled "Orioles hoax", since the Orioles link is central to, though not the entirety of, the points I have raised. You have been warned by another editor, who restored your deletions, that it is improper to alter my talk page wording. Please avoid doing so in future. FactStraight (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The ORIOLES SECTION is NOT A HOAX

A HOAX is a "falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax ). As you claim the section is a Hoax please provide proofs that:

1) Ercole III provvedimento di giustizia is forged (this check was done in the legal process and you know the result, which I understand you do not like);

2) the judicial pronouncement is a fake document and was not issued by an ITALIAN (not regional) Tribunale (city of Lecce 2017). Contact them and ask for a copy

3) after having translated the judicial pronouncement what I wrote in Italics is not true.

If you are not able to do so (of course as the section states FACTS that can be easily checked) yours are false claims, which in another setting would have landed you to a Court for defamation.

Best regards

Araldico69 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Araldico69: Please stop SHOUTING. If you can't reach agreement on this, please take it to 3O or to DR. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

dear @DavidBiddulph,

You are suggesting me to ask for a third opinion or dispute resolution to understand if a judiciary Pronouncement of an EU State Tribunal exist? Really?

I provided the direct link; it is sufficient to get google translator and check or to ask the Tribunale of Lecce for a copy.The person for some reason?? is not doing it.

 Araldico69 (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

If Araldico69 has lately been encouraged to create House of Este Orioles, how is that not a case of POVFORK from the House of Este article, in light of relevant discussion on the talk page of the latter? FactStraight (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

dear factright; I am not sure about your definition of point of view. I have always thought that point of view are not necessarily based on hard fact. you use a specific term in the House of Este and Ercole III ; you use the term Hoax. I asked you several times to produce proofs that my writing was a hoax. You failed to do so.

I wrote the House of Este Orioles page to further clarify about my writing. Now as by profession I assess Human behaviour.. in relation to your continue pestering ( borderline virtual bullying) without bringing any proofs + failing to check the links provided I assess your behaviour in two different ways

1) you are in bad faith and you have an agenda

2) you are a person frankly silly because you deny the evidence; Wikipedia should be based on provable Facts- not on the opinion of @Factright whoever is-; in the House of Este Orioles there are all the supports needed for a person in good faith to just apologise (perhaps remaining of the opinion that you disagree with the Italian state Judge etc..) as the term hoax which it is still used is highly offensive; unfounded and hence defamatory because public.

If the rules in Wikipedia are the same for everyone else; any attempt to vandalise (yes I read the wikipedia definition; you erased 3 times the section on both pages -House of Este/Ercole III without even informing) the Este Orioles page using the term Hoax should be sanctioned. As it is factless and frankly malicious.

So I invite you once again

As you have titled the sections HOAX; the proof to demonstrate this is on you. The admins of wikipedia have read all the talk and I hope they have understood that this is not a hoax and for some reason not sure why you continue having this bizarre behaviour.

you should demonstrate to me; wikipedia and the readers that:

1) the Ercole III provvedimento di giustizia is forged (this check was done in the legal process and you know the result, which I understand you do not like; you do not have any expertise to do so); 2) the judicial pronouncement is a fake document and was not issued by an Italian Tribunale (city of Lecce 2017). Contact them and ask for a copy

3) after having translated the judicial pronouncement what I wrote in Italics is not true.

THE ABOVE 3 POINTS ARE YOUR ALLEGATIONS SINCE THE BEGINNING

Araldico69 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear factright (you should really consider to change nickname; seriously) I have just waived my anonymity and sent the 3 links pages to Wikipedia foundation to several Executives -explaining the situation- including the legal Counsel executive. I will bring any further proofs to them not to you (as you are an anonymous). I have stressed your offensive use of the term Hoax and explained that is unfounded and defamatory; with my face and credibility I asked to be judged on this; my name on it; are you able to do so? Accusing a person and family publicly of hoax is NOT a point of view and must for fairness being proved. You have not apologised nor have changed the title of the section from Hoax to disagreement on the Italian judicial pronouncement. I find this unacceptable and beyond the boundaries of a civil and of a constructive exchange of ideas.

Araldico69 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Origins

"According to Edward Gibbon, the family originated from the Roman Attii family, which migrated from Rome to Este[11] to defend Italy against the Ostrogoths. However, there is little evidence to support this hypothesis."

If there's no evidence, why mention it at all?Jonathan f1 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)