Talk:Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg

Genealogic article
Is there really nothing to be said about her, except genealogy?--85.226.42.172 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

General
Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg vs Hesse-Rotenburg! Very few sources even add the Rheinfels part to her "surname" and none of her family members do either (hence my removing it but then thought should discuss it)! What are we to do? Also I do not appreciate anyone's work being removed because one person believes it to be trivia Monsieur le Duc (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As annotated when I edited the article to show that her correct title before marriage was "Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg", this is thoroughly documented in Huberty's L'Allemagne Dynastique, Tome I - Hesse, Reuss, Saxe. Pages 129-130 give this as her exact title. Pages 146-147 clarify that this remained the title of cadets of this dynasty until 1654, when "Rheinfels" was dropped. Although male cadets and females of the junior Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Homburg branches used the title "Landgrave/Landgravine" into the late 18th and early 19th centuries, only the heads of the Kassel branches did likewise: cadets and females of the Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Philipsthal, Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg, Hesse-Eschwege and Hesse-Wanfried branches took the title of Prince/Princess in the late 17th century. FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree with FactsStraight that parts of the article were very trivial. I mean, the article did not only discuss her sister's marriages (which is irrelevant here) but it also discussed who her sisters could have married and her niece's friend! That makes more than one person. However, I disagree with FactsStraight when it comes to other "trivial" things. For example, the place of birth can't be a trivial information. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My way of evaluating whether a factoid is trivial or not depends upon the relative importance of the subject, and of the factoid in that subject's life. I didn't delete where Polyxena was born or was buried. I simply cut the details down to one mention. It doesn't matter to me whether that mention is in the text or an info box, but only one, please. There is an almost unlimited interest in details about Louis XIV, Nicholas & Alexandra of Russia, Elizabeth II, etc. But less for their siblings, and increasingly less for their remote relatives and courtiers. Polyxena was for 5 years in the early eighteenth century the little-known consort of a king of a third-rate realm which no longer exists as a geo-political entity. It doesn't matter if we can find out as much info about her as we can about Marie Antoinette -- such detail is inappropriate in an article that should be little larger than a stub. Otherwise these articles become what many on Wikipedia already call them royalty cruft -- the tail wagging the dog. Larding up these Capetian/Savoy/Habsburg articles with photos, genealogy, architectural patronage and speculation about their "looks", "feelings" and "tastes" inappropriately trivializes this project. This is an encyclopedia -- a summary of the world's significant knowledge -- not a memoir, not a coffee table book, and not a Gothic novel. If we don't want fed-up republicans to take a scyth to all royalty and nobility articles, we had better do what the Bourbons couldn't -- forget our obsessions and learn some restraint. FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol, I know I can go on and on but some ones place of birth, a style they used, or how many children they had is pretty much relevant! Any views on the name?! Monsieur le Duc (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the number of children a woman buried before they reached puberty important to history? Why is it important to know whether Polyxena was a "Serene" or a "Royal" Highness? These are facts about long-dead people most of whom were very important in their lives, but have left little impact on ours. Just because something is interesting doesn't make it historically significant. In this case, the important dead infant to mention was not Polyxena's, but her aunt's -- because that child was headed for the throne and his premature death while Polyxena was his step-mother switched the line of descent from a previous queen to herself. I'd like to see more in this article about Polyxena's role as a liaison between a German, mostly Protestant dynasty and a Roman Catholic, Latin one. But that info gets bypassed in our rush to reveal that Polyxena's body was moved from one spot in Turin to another years after she died! On the specific matter of her style, neither Huberty nor Velde confirms that prior to her marriage in 1724 she was, by right, Durchlaucht (Serene Highness). It seems her father was Highness, but at this time German styles weren't yet fixed and she probably had an honorific rather than a style, i.e. Hochgeboren (Highborn). FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a compromise: include Rheinfels in the lead sentence and when her father is first mentioned, while otherwise omit it. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Compromise" based upon what equally reputable but conflicting sources? Polyxena's grandfather and father used the title "Landgrave of Hesse-Rotenburg", omitting the "Rheinfels" which the cadets kept. Her brother and nephew also included the "Rheinfels". I erred in failing to notice the distinction in use of "Rheinfels" between landgraves and cadet princes -- but that's not because the sources didn't include the info. On Polyxena's mother, although LouisPhilippeCharles hastily moved her article to back up his revert of my edit, Huberty confirms (and I footnoted) that she was a Countess of Lowenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort. Huberty's volumes are renowned for accuracy in genealogy, geo-dynastic history and titulature. I'd like to see a source considered more accurate on the Hessians' titles in this period! German titles weren't like French ones, which were mostly self-adopted, arbitrary, un-regulated, and abandoned by whim every generation. They abide by very predictable rules. (Speaking of which, I conflate subsections into sections because you can link to a section of an article, but not to a sub-section, so the latter should be avoided).FactStraight (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again User:LouisPhilippeCharles, while accusing me of article ownership, provocatively re-inserts error in the article -- without a reliable citation, facts notwithstanding. This is not an ambiguous point: the facts are not only known, but the issue of this family's titulature has been discussed in published literature. I have documented in the footnotes and responded at length, above, based on highly reputable research what this woman's correct title and territorial designation were ("Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg"). I have been requested to avoid edit-warring by discussing disputes such as this on the talk page rather than simply reverting the unjustified material. And a specific recommendation was made above to "compromise" which I, although disagreeing that a compromise is called for, have taken no action to reverse -- pending replies to the objections I raised above. I therefore urge others to review both the footnotes and the explanations given and to take appropriate action. Such errors of fact can't simply be left in the article. FactStraight (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see why stating (on an encyclopedia) that so and so had however many children, stlkes and other such information is not "important to history"!? Are you actually for real! Ownership of articles comes to mind and it is highly frustrating Monsieur le Duc (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Style and content
Efforts to reduce inappropriate style and content in this article may require request for external intervention. To avoid this, please let's stop adding and re-inserting non-encyclopedic matter, especially that which has been challenged. This has been repeatedly complained of for years (see e.g., the "Redundant & trivial content" and "Genealogic article" sections at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans and at Tbharding's talk page, but the editor responsible (committing the same errors at numerous biographical articles on the Capetians and their spouses and in-laws, as well as the Lorraines, Savoys, Estes, Gonzagas, Habsburgs, Wittelsbachs and French ducal families) seldom engages in specific edit discussions on talk pages, instead re-inserting deletions while dismissing fact tags and edit summary objections.

The problem persists in two forms: inappropriate style and inappropriate content. The content violates Wikipedia's exclusionary policy against genealogical minutiae and exposition of insignificant details. It consists of excess in: Speculation (assumptions about the "feelings", "thoughts", "attractiveness" or "relationships" of persons often long-dead presented as if factual or probable yet not reliably cited from the person's diary, correspondence or quoted statements); Trivia (information unimportant to the historical significance of the topic); Redundancies (information that is repeated in the article or duplicates info that is/should be in a different article), Extranea (superfluous information, only tangentially related to the topic). I have been very specific about the extent and different kinds of trivia habitually inserted in this and similar articles so that there can be no confusion about the criteria: Greater detail in articles about historically important or popular persons may be appropriate, whereas such detail in the articles of relatively minor or obscure persons is not notable, unduly lengthens the article, and is therefore inappropriate. Edits which are trivial, speculative, redundant or extraneous reduce the professionalism of Wikipedia because they:
 * 1) Include unsourced (and often, unsource-able) assertions that may be inaccurate
 * 2) Use an editorial voice more appropriate to narrative in a novel than to an objective encylopedia
 * 3) Divert the article's focus from facts which make the subject encyclopedically significant
 * 4) Pad the article, making it harder to notice when a stub needs sourced expansion -- or lacks sufficient notability to justify an article. FactStraight (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone please tell F.S to stop being such a child! He seems to think that categories and a template are regarded as trivia – it is dull now! It is even more amusing to see that these categories are not even correct (i.e. the dates are wrong) which proves completely he is just trying to be as difficult as possible! He is making himself seem a fool Monsieur le Duc (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * bio on minor queen consort of small obsolete country should incl minimal trivia I can not believe you! I can not see how you cant say I do not source things - I do! I have no problem with people rewriting/wording what I have write I, do not, however, see how you can justify you actions to anybody!? Also you stated Divert the article's focus from facts which make the subject encyclopedically significant - you do this all the time!! Oh My God!! Monsieur le Duc (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)