Talk:Lord of Balvaird

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility 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.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

Spam and poorly sourced content

About this edit, which parts of it were reliably, independently sourced? Fram (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram why have removed the baron's children and heir to Balvaird title? This is information in Burke's Peerage and verified. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you also removed their armorial achievements registered with the Lord Lyon, they are Younger and Maid of Balvaird, very relevant to the article Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Achievements", the terms used by these institutions is really terrible. Anyway, there were no sources added to them, being the "Maid of Balvaird" is not something of interest[1], and the armorials of a 6- and 4-year-old... perhaps let these children be children instead of pumped-up heirs to a now unimportant title? Fram (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is your personal opinion, it is very relevant to the title and the community that value them.

Here is a reference link but it's also in Burke's Peerage if you have the book or online subscription:

http://armorialregister.com/arms-sco/brim-deforest-h-arms.html

I'm reverting the page back with the children info. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inserting or reinserting unreliable sources left and right, it is getting disruptive. Fram (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from edit waring! How is Burke's Peerage not a reliable source. You are removing referenced content because of your personal opinion. I see looking at your page you have a history of disputes so this is not the first time you're pushing an agenda. Your personal opinion does not trout and overrule consensus. It is standard practice to mention the family and heir to a noble title, as per Burke's Peerage. I have put back the children but will fight for the Georgian title another day as I don't have time to compile all the evidence right now. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good source for Georgian title: https://www.royalheraldiccollegeofgeorgia.org/armigers-gallery/ 222.106.240.18 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a site from the royal house of Georgia, the ones that gave the title: not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Arms" section

In this version, the arms section takes up half the article, the arms are shown three times in the article, and the sources are largely poor ones (like this or this which have no indication of reliability or any importance, or this which has nothing about the arms). In the current version the arms are still shown, but no longer overwhelm the page as if the current arms are the most important (or even simply an important aspect) of the 400-year history of the Lords of Balvaird. Fram (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my edit, I added 7 independent sources, and there are dozens more available online for his coat of arms. I can easily add 20 more references to the page, but I doubt this would satisfy your concerns. Your opposition to including the Balvaird arms seems ill-founded, especially given how well-referenced this subject is online.

You mention that the arms take up half the article. This is standard practice for Wikipedia pages on nobility. The formatting used here is consistent with how coats of arms are displayed across ALL pages for nobles. Every single peer that has a coat of arms has it formatted this way, and in most cases, there aren’t any sources referenced at all.

I could provide over 1,000 examples, such as the page for the individual James Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough, or the title Lord Lovat. Additionally, it’s worth noting that on these 1,000-plus pages for British nobles, the heir is always referenced, but that’s a side topic for another time.

Frankly it's unbelievable that you are deleting Balvaird arms from this page.

Was it not enough for you getting your way with deleting the Count of Petra title, deleting the children and heir etc? Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for an individual are not comparable to pages for a title. I indicated above the issues with your sources, you completely ignore this. I am not deleting the Balvaird arms from this page, they are right there, in the armorial section. Fram (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my message above I also included as an example the title Lord Lovat.

The only reason there is a separate Armorial gallery of small images was to show the previous holders arms and the children.

But you are deleting the standard format way to display arms on a page about a title of nobility. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't really seem to be a standard way, see e.g. Lord Belhaven and Stenton. You haven't provided good sourcing for the current arms or to indicate that they are in some way important. I don't get why you are so busy providing xopious info about the current title holders, people who have in many cases no notability (or at best notability unrelated to their bought baron title) and are unrelated to the actual history of the title and what it meant when it had some power, some influence. Why we would have a lengthy description for the current coat of arms and display it three times (and if you had your way display the arms for the two toddlers as well), instead of doing this for the original one (if we need to do it for either of them), seems to be a severe case of Wikipedia:Recentism, something which we should avoid. Fram (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know from your previous comments that you have an opinion that these titles are fake and because you can buy them (if there is a family willing to sell) they're not notable, where a person by accident of birth or a person making a political donation receiving a title is more notable in your view. I do know that the few people that do manage to buy these hereditary titles are typically attached to gentry estates like Bavaird here so they have something to continue passing down.

As I mentioned to you previously, the vast majority of these titles are in the same family for generations, the market for selling barony titles is a tiny one - there might only be 1 or 2 sales a year sometimes none. The current holders are not selling they're family heirlooms. For example, there are over 30 scottish clan chiefs that are barons. Some of the titles come with hereditary offices like Sheriff or Constable of a Castle, pageantry and ceremony of state. Some had historic power over life and death with criminal courts. Some still today operate a Baron's court with officers appointed like a Barron Ballie that can can get a special coat of arms from lyon etc and hold civil courts or charitable community. It might not seem important to you but it is important cultural history that is valued.

The example you provided is one of the rare cases of the full arms not being shown, most pages do have it.

Although the example you provided DOES HAVE the shield in the info box.

The shield you deleted from this page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter that most of these titles stay in the family when we are discussing one where it didn't? What does it matter that other titles used to have power, and perhaps some of them still do, when we are discussing one that at the moment doesn't? And no, a person getting a title by heritage or donation isn't more notable, but the title (in the first case at least) is much older, the coat of arms is often much older and represents the history of the title. Even then it often gets too much attention, vexillologists and the like have inflated the use of these on enwiki, but at least they are an old, historic part of the title. Fram (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for "one of the rare cases", I went alphabetically through Category:Lordships of Parliament; picking the first article after Balvaird. So now I checked the next two, Lord Blantyre and Lord Borthwick, and neither of these has such a massive explanation of the arms either. Once is coincidence, three is a pattern. Fram (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to allege Balvaird coat are arms is not notable.

His arms are on this page: Slogan (heraldry) and:

https://www.heraldicinstitute.com/bradybrim-deforest (nice picture of him here!)

https://americanarmigers.us/register/brim-deforest-brady

https://www.blason.es/armorial_roll/workingprocessforbradybrimdeforest.html

https://www.whitelionsociety.org.uk/armorial/325-brady-brim-deforest

https://www.theheraldrysociety.com/members-arms/brim-deforest-fsa-scot-frai-of-balvaird-castle-brady/

Foreword by Balvaird with his coat of arms in this book: https://shop.americanancestors.org/collections/latest-releases/products/the-gore-roll?pass-through=true

https://armorialregister.com/arms-sco/brim-deforest.html

https://www.tania-crossingham.com/brady-invitation

https://www.heraldicart.it/portfolio-items/coat-of-arms-for-brady-brim-deforest/

https://www.digitalheraldry.com/project/traditional-style-digital-painting-of-a-mounted-knight/

http://www.inshader.ru/heraldry_05.html

https://clan.com/design/15294-Brim-DeForest-of-Balvaird-Castle/

http://www.scotarmigers.net/ssagallery/displayimage.php?album=4&pos=120

https://maxscotto.com/blog

and these are less notable as on social media and his own web site but worth mentioning to prove my point:

https://www.reddit.com/r/heraldry/comments/empvsk/the_arms_standard_and_badge_of_brady_brimdeforest/

https://www.behance.net/gallery/143204153/Baron-of-Balvaird

https://brimdeforest.com/

https://www.instagram.com/carlosnavarroheraldry/p/C9Kqqkdtjqj/

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/460774605628645832/

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=573361126447631&id=234156773701403&set=a.234161297034284

https://amateurheralds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1897 Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you please restrict this to reliable, independent sources? The first one I opened at random is this, a company where he ordered an ex-libris. How is that in any way a helpful or acceptable link for anything? I see that armorialregister.com is also included in your list. Something like https://americanarmigers.us/about is a website where anyone can register their arms. https://www.tania-crossingham.com/brady-invitation another page where he ordered artwork. All of this displays his arms, yes, just like it is displayed in the article now. But it doesn't show that the excessive attention you gave it is in any way warranted. Fram (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are being selective with the links you mention. Like you've been selective with the noble titles you choses to quote above.

I recommend people go through each link and decide if it's notable or not. For example, there is a book with a foreword by Balvaird with his coat of arms included.

These are honourable institutions: The Heraldic institute, The Heraldry Scoiety, The Lord Lyon Society run by the Lord Lyon, White Lion Society presided by His Grace The Duke of Norfolk the premier duke, Armorial Register is definitely a credible source as the credentials are verified the owner is legit but I know you disagree.

So to be honest, we now need to go for consensus of other uses, as I believe your intentions seem ill-founded. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does any of this show that his arms are notable for the article about the history of the title Lord of Balvaird, a 400-year-old title which he held for the last 7 years? That his coat of arms is included with a foreword he wrote or is shown at the Lord Lyon Society (which is a register, the place he had to register his arms, not a selective or historical source about arms or about the Lord of Balvaird) or is included in other sources which just show the arms of anyone who wants to become a member is meaningless. Are there reliable, independent sources about the centuries old Lord of Balvaird title which give significant attention to the current coat of arms, or are we the only one to do so? Is there a good reason to compleytely unbalance the article, giving so much attention to a trivial current detail which has no information about the actual history of the title and its holders? Fram (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lyon Society is not a a register of Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland. It is a separate charitable organisation a registered charity that armigers optional choose to support financially and with their time for good causes.

As mentioned above, you are breaking the standard format for titles of nobility that have the full coat of arms at the bottom of the page.

Even the page examples you provided has the shield in the info box. The shield you deleted on this page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, there doesn't seem to be a standard format anyway, and this isn't a standard situation, with the current baron distinct from the long-standing family one and the new system of duplicated titles where one has no actual meaning any longer (as in having actual power, or meaningful rights except some fancy dress). Fram (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking through those links quickly, there seem to be multiple reputable sources (along with many of lower quality). More importantly, however, is the fact that if the barony itself meets the criteria for inclusion, then clearly the arms of the current baron should be shown. It really doesn't matter if he inherited it two days ago or two decades ago. I think keeping a standard presentation across the pages for nobility here is important. Charliez (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arms of the current baron are shown, as repeatedly said and easily checked. In the other version, they were shown three times and took up about half of the page. Please see WP:RECENTISM. Fram (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the shield was shown in the gallery showing the previous holder's shield and the children.

The full coat of arms with description was shown at the bottom of the page - and the shield was in the info box - as per the default format of other nobility title pages.

If this is your argument @Fram delete the shield from the gallery box (leaving only the previous holders shield) and put back the shield in the info box and the full coat of arms at the bottom of the page as per standard format. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The non-existent standard format? Fram (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Trevethin and Oaksey Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These don't have a standard format, some only having the infobox (like Lord Reay), some having the additional box as well. Fram (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Apologies for the misunderstanding. However, the whole presentation of this title seem different than that for other titles of nobility. Seems to me a fixed format would be ideal. It may not be implemented for 100% of all such articles, but clearly the majority of articles follow the sort of layout of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Warwick, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Reay, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Eglinton etc. This seems to me to be a better way of presenting this; again ideally keeping the format the same across all such titles.

I do agree that the end result in the contested edit was perhaps excessive with very similar arms repeated multiple times. Not sure if younger sons' and daughters' arms should be included, but I much prefer the overall layout. Charliez (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Showing it once in the infobox instead of lower down may be acceptable of course. I still don't think showing the recent one instead of the long-standing earlier one is the best solution though. Fram (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram appreciate your concession, thank you for acknowledging this point Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the armorial gallery section should include all previous holders of whom we can source images of CoA and also the current holder? The aim of this section should be to display all arms related to the barony. It may result in the current baron's arms being shown twice, which - while not ideal - seems better than to leave them out of the gallery section. I think heirs' and other children's' arms should definitely be left out, though; the originally contested edit was definitely excessive on that point. Charliez (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

at the vey least @Fram will you agree to the shield being deleted from the gallery and going back in the info box in the top right? Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to show there the current one and not the original one, which a) lasted for much longer and b) was used when the title was more important than it is now? Fram (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through this whole discussion, and I've been trying to figure out why Fram is the authority who decides "the title used to be more important than it is now". But now that I think about it, every British titile right up to the Monarch is less important than it used to be.

As to the format, if someone is trying to make the page follow a standard format used by other similar pages, arguing that there exist pages that don't follow the format seems spurious. Just because every page doesn't follow the format doesn't mean this one shouldn't. It makes sense that the arms of current holder of the title should be in the infobox. Many titles have had numerous holders with different arms, and having a discussion on each page of whose arms should be in the infobox would be a waste of time. Having a gallery of the arms of all the previous title holders would be nice. As a lover of heraldry, I would appreciate that. The arms of the children are propbably not neccesary, as the standard differentiation from the father's arms can be deduced. Muirton (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher baronets nice example of a gallery of family arms here Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charliez Off topic but funny you mention Earl of Warwick, his son Lord Brooke is a good friend of mine 😂 I thought his name was familiar Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]