Talk:Order of the Eagle of Georgia

Controversy
I have noticed that the Controversy section added by me is being repeatedly removed. There are two sources cited, both from a major UK newspaper. The Mail on Sunday is not a deprecated source per the Wikipedia list, as it is a separate company and has a separate staff from the Daily Mail and Mail Online. It is regularly accepted as a reliable source elsewhere on Wikipedia. I also note the Deprecated Sources list spells out for the Sun that the Sun on Sunday is also included, but does not do the same with The Daily Mail. It concerns me that valid concerns about an Order of Chivalry with notability that justified two articles in a UK newspaper are being removed without valid cause, and without seeking consensus here on the talk page. Ortolan57 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ortolan57, I don't see that you've established consensus for adding the material to the article? As per WP:NOCON the absence of such consensus "results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" - in other words, the version prior to your addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So let's see if we can come to consensus now then. You haven't gone into the reasoning for why you believe the section requires more sourcing, given it is referenced by two articles. I'd be curious to know your thinking. Ortolan57 (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The present sourcing is not reliable and does not support that the claim is significant to the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is the present sourcing unreliable? As far as I can see, it has not been subject to an upheld legal complaint or correction. It also has comments from all parties involved, and presents evidence of the Order being for sale. It also does support the claim it is significant. It involves the Head of State of a country and the accusation that the Order was involved in something inappropriate in relation to said head of state. The other claim is that it is for sale, a claim that is significant for other Orders of chivalry and is mentioned on other Orders' articles, citing articles from British newspapers. See cash for honours scandals and other related pages, where these sorts of 'scandals' have been in the article. An Order of chivalry is considered a recognition of merit/standing, it being for sale is a significant claim to merit mention in a Wikipedia article, let alone two separate editions of a major UK publication. Ortolan57 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been looking around and can find no other source on this "controversy" - I would expect a significant claim would be more widely reported. Do you have any to present? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Nikkimaria, if this is notable enough and true then there would other reliable sources reporting on it. Are there any?  Kimon talk 13:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean if it was true? None of the people mentioned in the article contradict it? The Mail on Sunday is not a deprecated source, so why are you as editors treating it as if it is. If the New York Times is the only person to report on something, it doesn't make it automatically untrue or not notable just because no one else does. I would understand if this was a MailOnline story or from the Daily Mail, both deprecated sources, or from an unreliable blog. But this is a national newspaper that is an established source. No complaint was made about the story's inaccuracy. I can't help but feel you're applying inappropriate standards to a perfectly reliable and non-deprecated source for no real reason. The award to the queen itself was only reported in one source, and included in the article, so why is this followup not equal? it's also with noting having looked at the rest of the article, huge parts (mostly the positive parts) are singly sourced, often to the Order's own website or not even sourced at all. I notice none of those have been removed or mentioned in the consensus argument on double sourcing.Ortolan57 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I am very concerned by the behaviour of fellow editors with this page. Despite you offering no response or objections to the comment from me above, you have once again removed adding a brief section on the controversy around the order. The source is not deprecated, and by being in a national newspaper it is therefore an event of important/national interest. The story was never corrected/changed, or had complaints against it, and members of the order are directly quoted without disagreement in the article itself. There are further concerns that the only other person to help Nikkimaria is Kimon who seems to have a direct interest in this subject as he holds the very order the article is about which he did not declare above. It is not appropriate to use his weight as any neutral form of consensus gathering. I propose adding the detail in the History section directly following the award to Queen Elizabeth II. It is significant because she is the only member of the Order with any citation, and clearly its most notable. The text would be as following

"The gift generated some controversy in the British media. The Mail on Sunday published an article shortly afterwards alleging that membership of the Order could be purchased, including a price list that had been obtained by the newspaper from the Order's Grand Chancellor, Alfredo Escudero."

Please let me know what objections you have to the above, if any.
 * As above, I would expect such a significant claim to be supportable by other sources. I continue to object to inserting this claim with this sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * nikkimariaI find this attitude confusing. There are plenty of significant events that have only been covered by one news source. There are plenty of edits you have made to Wikipedia articles, as have I, supported by only one source. Why is it this in particular that requires more than that? I would understand if the article had been corrected, or the subjects of it had objected to its accuracy but none have. Ortolan57 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As indicated at RSP, this source "should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles". To support that the controversy is significant and warrants inclusion would require a different source. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but this is the crux of the issue that I have explained multiple times and you seem to have ignored. The Mail on Sunday is not on the list of deprecated sources or unreliable sources. It is a completely separate to the Daily Mail which I agree is unreliable and deprecated. It has a different editor and staff, but simply shares a website. Other newspapers that have sister papers that have been deprecated are listed, the Mail on Sunday is not. If it satisfies you, there are plenty of web addresses to the Mail on Sunday that it does not share with the Daily Mail, which I am happy to use instead. At no point have you shown me where this publication is listed anywhere on Wikipedia or its policies as unreliable. Ortolan57 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact Nikkimaria the issue of the Mail on Sunday is specifically discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#(Infomercial_voice)_But_Wait!_There's_still_more!!_(News_about_The_Daily_Mail) and if you search it is made clear the Mail on Sunday is not deprecated and that removing it for that reason is illicit. "Neither WP:DAILYMAIL or WP:DAILYMAIL2 covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated."
 * If you read further down in that discussion, you'll find a different opinion: "The print edition of the MoS may be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred." Do you have a better source for the content you propose adding? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * nikkimariaRight, so we have clarified that your original argument that it was listed on RSP is not the case and it is not a deprecated source. This was in the print edition of the Mail on Sunday on the day the article is from, this can be seen on various clippings archives as proof. So we left only with the one source issue, which as you know is not a violation just not the ultimate ideal. Given the source is not deprecated, with consensus I propose to add back in the controversy with the one source, and can add a tag requesting more sources if you would prefer. If you'd really like, I can even use the press reader link rather than the dailymail.com domain? Ortolan57 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * with consensus I propose... But you do not have consensus at this point. As above, I'd expect a significant controversy to be more widely reported, and given that this one is apparently not, I don't agree it'd be appropriate to re-add this with or without tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * nikkimaria I am so confused by this. You originally stated I couldn't make the change as it violated a policy it now is clear it doesn't, the edit is not illicit and your presumed valid grounds of removing it no longer count, so what is your objection now and what adopted Wikipedia policy does it cite? As far as I can see it now only is covered by the one source tag one. I feel you are being purposefully obstinate here after your original argument has failed. Ortolan57 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I don't feel this single source is adequate to demonstrate that the controversy is significant and warrants inclusion. The relevant policy here is WP:DUE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * DUE? nikkimaria The same policy you haven't applied anywhere else in the article in question? The thing is littered with uncited positive points, and those that are seem mostly be from the Order's own website. If we were to as rigidly apply DUE as you are here, then this article would be about a fraction of its current size. If you do not believe it is adequate to determine controversy, then why not simply describe the facts as the article lays them out. The order was accused of being for sale by The Mail on Sunday, who published a price list after Queen Elizabeth II received the order. It is without the voice of controversy and lays out exactly who reported it, and why it is important to include. I am trying to work with you here to establish consensus rather than shutting the possibility of editing down completely. Ortolan57 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't claimed the rest of the article is perfect, although I'm not sure it's quite as awful as you suggest. But the fact that the rest of the article isn't perfect doesn't mean that we should just throw everything out the window for new additions. In order to include the accusation I'd want to see some indication that the accusation is in some way significant; I have not seen that. The statement that "The order was accused of being for sale by The Mail on Sunday, who published a price list after Queen Elizabeth II received the order" lays out who reported it but does not indicate "why it is important to include" by itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get that. Let me step back and look at this in the bigger picture rather than getting annoyed as I was. I think what is important to note here is that the quality of membership of these orders is important. They are after all called Orders of *Chivalry*. In history, the sale of orders has always been significant news. When Lloyd-George sold membership of British orders, it almost brought down his government, and even smaller orders like the Order of St Joachim was embroiled in scandal after it was revealed to be for sale in the early 19th century. The latter is a very important precedent, as they relied on important members getting into it *for free* to promote its credibility for those who purchased it. In this Order's case, the important member used for advertising is Queen Elizabeth II. It features prominently across their websites, and is the top of the membership list here. Her receiving the order was significant news, and so a newspaper examined the Order further. The fact the Order was written about twice in a major national newspaper shows it is at minimum of national importance. Knowing then that it is for sale and can be purchased is even more significant. Orders of chivalry, as the main Wiki article says, exists to promote the values of chivalry, and are given for merit or achievement. Purchasing them is obviously contradictory to those ideals, and is important to know in that context. Especially when nowhere on the Order's website does it mention the fact it can be bought. Sorry for the essay, but it's why I have been trying to push the point so much. Ortolan57 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that, but I have to say, what you're saying about the background - where it was considered a big deal even for a smaller order - makes me even more surprised to see that no other sources picked up on the story. Any idea why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * nikkimaria I imagine in this scenario it is because the Mail on Sunday conducted the conversation with the Order themselves, and so the evidence would not have been available in its raw format to other newspapers. However, it was heavily discussed in the Orders world, and the award to Queen Elizabeth II remains a hot topic of discussion. In the modern era, newspapers covering these esoteric topics is rare, so much of the discussion exists on social media and private groups which is how I became aware of it. Separately, and a point I should have made above: This article, in the beginning and the infobox discusses how it is only given for exceptional work, and merit. It does not mention it being for sale, nor on its own website. So the idea of it being for sale obviously contradicts that, and is a significant accusation to at minimum mention in the article as a counter point. Ortolan57 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Mail On Sunday is deprecated: WP:MAILONSUNDAY. , you claimed in your edit summary that "there is consensus on the Talk page" but (as above) it's literally just you insisting repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)