User talk:The Emperor's New Spy/Archive 21

Gustav of Sweden (1568)
Hello again! My motivation here, in the interest of brevity, was to include only the year when he officially became "of Sweden" in the paretheses, but I have no objection to your filling in his year of death. Shall we use the same method (yours) for his sister do you think, in order to be consistent? Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC) PS I see you were at it while I was writing this. She was born in 1566 but was "of Sweden" from 1568. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Date should always include the birth and death years, the entire range of their life, or else we assumed he was born and died in 1568. I already changed Sigrid's article. It is extremely odd to date when they gain their title --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To me "Sigrid of Sweden (1568-1633)" means that she was Sigrid of Sweden only during those years, but I can see your point. "Michelle Obama", as dated only from her wedding year, could be confusing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigrid was born in 1566, not 1568. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you fixed that now, thanx. But as we agree here, why blast me with "it is extremely odd and unheard of to place the date someone held a title in the article name only their lifespans" in the summary. Necessary? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No I am merely stating my opinion. Sorry if you took it personally. It is my style to usually edit with a pattern already accepted by other users, ie. the parenthesis and dates of life.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agrippina
I have lived in Georgia for many years and I kept seeing/hearing her name in newspapers, on TV etc to this day. The Georgia-related articles are very much leaning towards male chauvinism and some of the most prolific wiki authors seem to be concerned only with bearded old men, saints and martyrs so I can see why they would not take interest in this lady. We cannot use that as a measure of how important something is.

Moreover, the Georgian people page is not a history page for the country of Georgia. An ethnic Georgian does not have to be important in Georgia's history to be considered important overall. General John Shalikashvili has been to Georgia only a couple of times but I think he is notable.

Also, to clarify I see nothing wrong with including Mirian as he is considered a Georgian king, even if Georgian only in ancient sense. I removed him because he has been there many times in the past and for quite some time. I prefer to bring some diversity to the infobox by showcasing new personalities, so that people don't see only individuals that they knew anyway. I have seen some quite insignificant modern violinists and pianists included...--Permaveli (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ludwig Gaston von Sachsen tranlsation

 * I'm happy Icarus agreed to do it. I have reservations because the German article is totally unsourced (so much of the German Wikipedia is less that rigorous with sourcing). Still, I understand that it must be difficult to write an article on him lacking German language skills that would allow you to check better sources, so I empathize. Regards Hekerui (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Wives of David II of Kakheti and Constantine II of Kakheti
Hello. I'm sorry for a late reply. The problem is that most of the resources found on the net on the Georgian royal genealogies are based on Toumanoff's charts which, however valuable, are somewhat outdated and not infrequently at odds with more recent research, especially in Georgia. I've tried to reconcile the family trees found in Toumanoff and in the most recent Bagrationi genealogy published in Georgia in 2003. When the data are conflicting, I tend to prefer the latter. Regarding the wives of David II and Constantine II, the oft-cited Russian Noble families of the Russian Empire (1996) makes Yatri-Jahan-Begum, a daughter of the beylerbey of Erivan Shakhrukh-Zadeh, wife of David II and Fakhri-Jahn-Begum, daughter of the shamkhal of Tarki, wife of Constantine II, but the website run by the author of the chapter from the above-mentioned book do mention David II's two wives, one ,an anonymous daughter of the shamkhal, and the other, Yatri-Jahan-Begum, a daughter of the beylerbey of Erivan. According to Toumanoff, Fakhri-Jahn-Begum—whom she makes daughter of Shakhrukh-Zadeh, beylerbey of Erivan and granddaughter of the shamkhal—was David II's wife, while Constantine II was married twice, first to Peri Jan Begum, daughter of the shamkal, and then to a daughter of Fath 'Ali Khan Daghistani, I'timad ud-Daula, a Persian minister.

To the best of my knowledge, most, but definitely not all of the Muslim Georgian royals were still monogamous. Their consorts were still styled as queens in Georgian documents. For example, Rostom of Kartli married according to both Christian and Muslim customs and his wife, Mariam, remained deeply Christian throughout her life. We do know, however, children of the Muslim Georgian Bagratids born of concubines. But it appears most of them had their "chief wives" as their queens.--KoberTalk 15:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince Wilhelm of Prussia
Prince William was not a monarch!!!--79.173.1.148 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point, nor is Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. I think you are getting infobox monarch confused with infobox royalty. This is infobox royalty and any person who held a royal title is considered royalty.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of opinion. I am a historian.--79.173.1.148 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What? I am not giving an opinion that Prince Wilhelm was a monarch. He was a royal and that is why infobox royalty is used. Wikipedia doesn't exclusively use infobox royalty for monarchs just look at this. Template:Infobox royalty gives Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, who is not a monarch as an example. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I will not be blocking anyone as there has been nothing to warrant a block. However, it does appear that Template:Infobox royalty can be used, even if the subject of the article is not a monarch. James086 Talk 18:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nie rozumiesz historii ani podstawowych pojęć z nią związanych a zabierasz głos w dyskusii. I języka polskiego też nie znasz. Więc tej uwagi też nie pojmiesz. Przykro, że historią zajmują się dyletanci. Powodzenia--79.173.1.148 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have an extreme poor understanding of English. In English there is a difference between a royal and a monarch.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ja sądzę, że Ty w ogóle nie rozumiesz o czym piszesz. Jestem historykiem z wykształcenia I historię Niemiec znam doskonale. W przeciwieństwie do Ciebie, widzę różnicę między podstawowymi pojęciami dotyczącymi historii, zwłaszcza historii Niemiec. Bujaj dalej w obłokach I wprowadzaj ludzi w błąd--79.173.1.148 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are bordering on insulting me at this point. Stop flaunting your identity as a Historian because this an issue of policy and usage on Wikipedia not on a post-1918 redefinition of German royalty. Seeing your comment on Ruby2010's page. All I have to say is on the definition of royalty, Wikipedia doesn't recognize Weimar Republic law or any laws enacted by a republic banning former royal titles or redefining it to only exclusively refer to the head of royal houses or former monarchs. We don't use the Weimar Republic's definition of who is a royal. We call the children and royal descendant of everyone of the German monarchs deposed in 1918 royals to this day. If you want to push for your own definition and for their removal take it to Template talk:Infobox royalty to get other users to support you and your point.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nie obnoszę się z faktem bycia historykiem. To tytułem wyjaśnienia. Jeśli poczułeś się dotknięty to Twoja sprawa. Dotykamy tu kilku różnych kwestii na różnych poziomach. I zapewne stąd nasze nieporozumienia. Myślę, że nie ma sensu dalej toczyć tej dyskusji, bo z punktu widzenia pryncypiów jest ona dla mnie bezprzedmiotowa. Ale dziękuję za Twoją opinię i życzę powodzenia w dalszych pracach w Wikipedii. Pozdrawiam--79.173.1.148 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

House of Aviz
The one substantive thing that could still be done there is for someone to translate and bring over the rather large graphic illustrating the genealogy; not something I'm taking on. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 07:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback re: Draft of Prince Pierre, Duke of Penthièvre
-   t  u coxn \ talk 01:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I believe this might be ready to get moved into main-space and I'd like to give you the opportunity to edit it before I make the move. I will make a DYK nomination for it very shortly after I move it. Some folks on suggested that I alter the section title that you changed to "Brazilian Match", which they thought sounded like a soccer game. Let me know if you don't have any other edits to make. -    t  u coxn \ talk 04:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexandra of Denmark
What exactly is your concern here? Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there citation for why she changed for HH Princess Alexandra of Denmark to HRH Princess Alexandra of Denmark?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Burke's Royal Families of the World says that Christian was granted the style "Royal Highness" for himself and his children in 1858 (though it doesn't give a day or month). DrKiernan (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 21:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Did you know nominations
Many thanks for your advice and nomination. I'll try to be more active in that part of Wikipedia. Best, --KoberTalk 17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Family tree
Hello Spy,

Can you do these kind of family trees? georgian JORJADZE 17:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No that is beyond my knowledge. It is pretty time consuming. Template:Family tree teaches how. The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone who specially does these kinds of family trees and maybe I could ask to do one for me? GEORGIANJORJADZE 18:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea. Check the family trees and ask the editors that made them or go to the Help desk.The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spy. GEORGIANJORJADZE 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Prince El-Mirza of Kakheti
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Mukhrani and Gruzinsky
Hello Spy,

I am thinking of moving these two branches to "Bagrationi of Kartli" and "Bagrationi of Kakheti" as it would be more understandable from the readers' point of view how the branches went seperate. Anything to say or suggest? GEORGIANJORJADZE 12:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't. These are established names with reliable sources while your terms are not. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bagrationi of Gruzinsky and Bagrationi of Mukhrani is better? Bagrationi or Bagration should be mentioned by all means. GEORGIANJORJADZE 15:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No because that is not in the sources. Why do you insist on adding qualifiers like Georgian and Bagrationi to names to make them more Georgian and more Bagrationi? --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you create an article on Ana Bagration-Gruzinsky? GEORGIANJORJADZE 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I have no interest in creating an article on her. You can.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Georgian monarchs and Georgian Jorjadze
Yes, it's really a mess. As for him, I'm writing to User:Elockid, who unblocked him last month and seems to act as his mentor, to ask him at least to explain GJ why his behavior's not ok. As for the family trees and kings' lists, I haven't had time to look in the details, but I'll try later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for your work and message anyway!Susuman77 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your last message. I was only learning how to build such tables and had copied the model from another page, and I totally agree with your arguments why it's not such a good idea to leave the "title" column. So I've removed it. Do you like how it looks? Any suggestions? I think it could serve well as a basis for List of Georgian monarchs, and have suggested as much in the talkpage there. Susuman77 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I actually added tables like these to List of Frankish kings a few years back. The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, that was you! Well, you were my model then, accept my heartfelt thanks!Susuman77 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Last Queen of Imereti
Except for being the last queen and exiled by the Russians to Voronezh, I don't think that she's otherwise notable. I will look through my sources, but I have very little hope that anything special will come up. --KoberTalk 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw, can a queen consort be considered notable be default? As there are no royalty/nobility-specific criteria of notability on Wikipedia, should we just follow the general notability guidelines? --KoberTalk 15:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most can actually. We have article on queen consorts whose only notability is their family relations and title. If you were to create an article the last Queen of Imereti maybe something along the line of Anna Abashidze would do, where you focused on the circumstances surrounding the marriage, her biological family, her children, etc.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of dubious information
I'm sorry, but that's got to be one of the most bizarre claims I've ever seen here. I believe a piece of information is incorrect and you state that it shouldn't be removed because the entire article is unsourced. Incredible. Then you state that you don't care enough to provide sources, but do care enough to revert when someone removes the information on grounds of pure inaccuracy. If someone had told me this, I wouldn't believe it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your behavior just as disruptive. You remove ton of information you perceive as "dubious" and if I disagree I am suppose to improve the article even if I don't want to source it or edit it. You don't want to add sources to fix these articles as much as I do. Since the information is not dubious because sources exist but are not added then it is unsourced until it is sourced. Why do I have to do the sourcing? This information is accurate and true and I think it should continue to exist until someone who wants to put in the time and effort unlike you or me can source it. That is why we have tags for these things. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to do the sourcing because you believe the information is correct. I don't. If I believed there were sources confirming the information, then I wouldn't have much reason to consider the said information incorrect. If the article said she was queen of Iceland, would you remove that claim? Of course you would. Would it make sense if someone reverted your edit because everything else in the article is also unsourced? Of course it would not. Please read Verifiability:

"Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a different perception of the word dubious than you do. Your example is obviously dubious what you removed about her being called Crown Princess was not obviously dubious to me... Either way I habe provided one source stating Danish sources called her kronprinsesse. I have proved that your stating it was dubious was incorrect. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)