Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Descent from Philip and Louis
I hereby start a formal discussion about the relevancy of the statement that Teresa Cristina descends from Philip V of Spain and Louis XIV of France. There is an entire section devoted to her ancestry, titled accordingly, that explains her descent. The sentence in the section "Birth" does not explain why it is relevant to mention her great-great-great-great-grandfather. Therefore, I must ask, why not mention Henry IV of France, the first Bourbon king of France who issued the famous Edict of Nantes, or Hugh Capet, the first Capetian king? Both were Teresa Cristina's patrilineal ancestors, much like Philip and Louis.
I am sure the source says she was descended from them but Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be copies of sources. They should be a summary of what's important and shouldn't be repetitive. If there is no reason to mention the subject's great-great-great-great-grandfather, why do so? For the sake of trivia? Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because the source used did not mention Henry IV or Hugh Capet. For the last time: stop removing sourced info. --Lecen (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seriously claiming that every detail from the book should be part of the article? Are you seriously claiming that the article already contains every detail found in the book? If I am not mistaken, the book makes references to many people this article does not mention, and it doesn't mention them for a good reason. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- This article has been through a very rigorous FA process. There were no comments raising this sort of objection, and lineage is useful to some who read biographies, particularly the biographies of royals. Lecen is correct that we only summarize sources, and you are correct that every detail does in sources need not be included. However, it is improper to remove sourced information without discussion and consensus, and there are legitimate reasons why this particular background information would be of interest to readers—as much so here as it is in other articles where lineage is given. • Astynax talk 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I hope you are not trying to say that I am not allowed or supposed to propose a change to the article, because that would be incorrect. I don't recall Lecen saying anything about summarising sources. Of course, lineage is important when it comes to royals, which is why we have an entire section about it. Anyway, if there are indeed legitimate reasons why this particular information (the name of one of the subject's many notable great-grea-great-great-grandfathers) would be of interest to people reading about her birth, why am I still waiting to be told one? Why don't you or Lecen tell me one such reason? Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what the problem is. The sentence is properly sourced and relevant to the article. As we all know, lineal descent is a very important aspect of nobility and royalty. Limongi (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've explained what the problem is. You haven't explained how it's relevant. Merely saying that it is relevant does not make it relevant. It is easy to find a source that refers to her as someone's descendant - for example, the year book of The American Philosophical Society points out the descent of this "archaeological heiress" from Pope Paul III. However, how relevant would that be for this article? How relevant is her descent from Louis XIV of France and Philip V of Spain? Why should the name of one of her great-great-great-great-grandparents be one of the first things said about her in the body of the article? There were (and still are) countless descendants of Louis and Philip (and Paul) roaming around - why is Teresa Cristina's descent from these men notable? Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what the problem is. The sentence is properly sourced and relevant to the article. As we all know, lineal descent is a very important aspect of nobility and royalty. Limongi (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I hope you are not trying to say that I am not allowed or supposed to propose a change to the article, because that would be incorrect. I don't recall Lecen saying anything about summarising sources. Of course, lineage is important when it comes to royals, which is why we have an entire section about it. Anyway, if there are indeed legitimate reasons why this particular information (the name of one of the subject's many notable great-grea-great-great-grandfathers) would be of interest to people reading about her birth, why am I still waiting to be told one? Why don't you or Lecen tell me one such reason? Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- This article has been through a very rigorous FA process. There were no comments raising this sort of objection, and lineage is useful to some who read biographies, particularly the biographies of royals. Lecen is correct that we only summarize sources, and you are correct that every detail does in sources need not be included. However, it is improper to remove sourced information without discussion and consensus, and there are legitimate reasons why this particular background information would be of interest to readers—as much so here as it is in other articles where lineage is given. • Astynax talk 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seriously claiming that every detail from the book should be part of the article? Are you seriously claiming that the article already contains every detail found in the book? If I am not mistaken, the book makes references to many people this article does not mention, and it doesn't mention them for a good reason. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid I had no other option but to report this case here. Removing a tag and refusing to discuss or provide a reasonable argument is something I have not seen yet and I do not know how to deal with it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)