Talk:William I, Count of Hainaut

Pedigree re-added
Just a quick note to register that I have re-added the pedigree and removed the sourcing tag because I see this as a type of infobox. WP discussion about them is at the template talk: which shows no consensus. I was not involved in that discussion but I added some remarks on User:Surtsicna's talk page:, ,. My concerns are particularly for pre-1300 people where genealogy is both important and central to scholarly discussion. I really think we have to discuss any real sourcing concerns case by case in this period, and not delete whole sections. (Actually it is clear that sourcing is not the only reason for the deletions.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If this genealogy were important and central for scholarly discussions, then these 5-generation ahnentafeln would be found in academic, peer-reviewed biographies. They are never included in such works, however. So no, they are not even of peripheral importance to scholars. These charts are not exempt from WP:V. That has been confirmed in multiple discussions. Infoboxes are not exempt from it either. The difference is that infobox contains information found in the text, so it is sourced elsewhere in the article. That a certain Sophia of Saarbrücken was the mother of the father of the father of William's mother is not sourced anywhere in the article - and there is no reason to think that it should not be. The fact that she and others are not mentioned by any general biography of William tells us that this information is, in fact, trivia. Trivia tagged as unsourced for five years, to make the matter worse. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, on your general crusade, which you know you have no consensus for, I have replied at the appropriate place here. I think the most important point to make is that you are presenting this as a Verifiability issue, and then showing that you know very well that this is not a concern. In most of your posts, you've shown that your real concern is just a personal preference of aesthetics. A "5-generation ahnentafeln" is just a way of describing a format of presenting information about ancestry, and we both know that for this period ancestry is of critical importance to understanding people, and the most serious history books about this period are full of genealogy and prosopography and various formats of diagrams trying to show it in a printable way without hyperlinks.
 * Coming to your new last argument, please confirm my understanding of what you are arguing. It seems you are saying that one person in this information box has been researched by you and found to be not specifically notable? And therefore all mention of her should be deleted from this ancestry information box? I don't think this is how WP:NOTE normally works? Is there another policy you are thinking of?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

For reference while we discuss:


 * Comment: For a related, big picture discussion on this topic, please see: Template_talk:Ahnentafel. PPEMES (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not "know" that I do not have a consensus for this "crusade" against these unsourced (and unverifiable) charts. In fact, I see quite a strong, arguments-based consensus for it in Template talk:Ahnentafel. Yes, this is a verifiability issue. No, it is not aesthetics. I would have no trouble with the format itself if it were used in peer-reviewed biographies. And no, this is not about one specific person. As I said, if ancestry up to great-great-grandparents (and including all great-great-grandparents) were of "critical importance to understanding people", you would have no trouble citing at least one biography of any person of this age (let alone of William) that names all of his or her great-great-grandparents. Yet you have not cited any such work, while others (most importantly Ealdgyth) have presented evidence to the contrary. So rather than repeating unsubstantiated claims, it would be much more helpful if you could present some evidence. Surtsicna (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please define clearly what facts (not formats) need sourcing and how they should be neatly added into this particular infobox. Did you even make the tag originally? But OTOH your own words make a mockery of your claim that sourcing of facts is a concern: "I would have no trouble with the format itself if it were used in peer-reviewed biographies." It means you are demanding a source for the format, right? We do not need sources for formats. We also do not have to find sources which connect a certain collection of facts in exactly same way as our article. That would make almost every article we make unsourced, and would be an impossible demand! What is important for WP:V and WP:RS is sourcing of the facts themselves. We put the facts together based on our editorial judgement. You clearly do not understand the basic logic of these policies. Concerning the Ealdgyth link you posted I understand this was also about the formats in printed books, not sourcing. Or else please tell me where he raised a question about the facts of William of Hainaut's ancestry. If it is not WP:RS or WP:V you think are a concern, then please check if you can come up with another new reason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Source removal by DrKay
I note this deletion of a recently demanded and added source footnote. It won't be apparent from the edit but this was done as a reaction to a discussion between me, who added the source, and User:DrKay who deleted it, on the Template talk page for the "Ahnentafel" template where a source was demanded. The background on this article is: I also pointed out that...
 * The template was tagged as unsourced and then later deleted, on the basis that no one had added a footnote. I reinserted it, and added a source.
 * I also used this case as an example on the Template talk, where I raised a concern about largescale deletions of ancestry templates despite there being obvious open questions about how to handle it best - creating a kind of race between deleters apparently trying to create a WP:FAIT, and anyone who wants to really address verification concerns. DrKay noted there (several days ago) that the source I added was self-published. I responded there that it was a well-known expert's well-known publication, which could be discussed at WP:RSN if needed. There was no reply to my explanation or offer.
 * 1. The original sourcing of the table appears to actually be on the article, in the sources at the bottom of the page. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln will certainly have this information. Probably also Moriarty, The Plantagenet Ancestry of King Edward III and Queen Philippa. (If someone has a copy of these, please confirm, and we can put these in the footnote and close this discussion.) It is particularly clear in this case that these two sources must relate to exactly the type of information that was deleted.
 * 2. It is not an appropriate use of any version of the "unreferenced" tag to delete material when it appears that the source is actually mentioned, but just not in a nice format. (It is also certainly not a demand of WP:V, in fact it is clear conflict with the spirit of the best practice advised by WP:V and related policies, to delete information which the deleter knows to be verifiable, which has apparently been the case with many table deletions I've looked at.)

As a direct result of me making this second point 5 days later, DrKay has taken some revenge actions against me (although I actually never made one of these Ahnentafels as far as I recall). One is that DrKay changed vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose" on the template talk, and another is this citation deletion.
 * PROPOSED ACTION. Unless anyone can come up with a good reason, I intend to add the citation back. If anyone has time to find better sources, that is wonderful. If necessary it can also be discussed at WP:RSN, or any forum required. Overall though, I think the background to the deletion is that it is disruptive editing, and in conflict with WP policies in several ways.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, the natural conclusion of this would be to just accept a 4-generation ancestry table, which is perfectly adequate for all purposes and has already been offered as a compromise on multiple talk pages. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being honest. (And no, I am not being sarcastic.) Frankly, it means you did the deletion in order to hold WP:V hostage and get a certain format which you prefer. OTOH, concerning the format of this table, this can and should be discussed. I prefer case by case. See for example my discussion with Surtsicna here. But the core content aims of verifiability and having good quality informative articles should in any case never be used as bargaining chips or smokescreens. That is my concern, not the number of generations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a bargaining chip or a smokescreen. It is a real concern. The bargaining chip is the 4-generation compromise, not the other way around. DrKay (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you really arguing that deleting a 5th generation always, in every case, removes a "real concern" with the verifiability of everyone's ancestry? (This "bargaining" strategy has apparently been used on hundreds or even thousands of articles?) In this particular case where we have sources, and the person involved has a very well-known ancestry, I would honestly be interested to hear what real concern you have with Schwennicke, Moriarty, and Richardson. Which great great grandparents do you believe to be unverifiable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this. DrKay (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. IMHO opinion is better to just use words like those ones. This is therefore the type of "due weight" opinion where Wikipedians can have reasonable differences of opinion. FWIW, personally I like having the option of >4 generations available for some types of historical people, but it is not my big concern. In this case here, I find it a shame to delete the mention of Baldwin of Constantinople for example, but I am not overly concerned about it. In any case what do we do about the footnote/unreferenced tag in this article? Can we re-add Richardson? Perhaps you have a copy of one of the other sources you can access to check them? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They're the same words I've been using all along, as anyone can see by searching through my comments at the template talk page. Every comment I've made there is consistent with that view. I'm hardly going to complain if you now implement that view at this page, with or without Richardson. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)