Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Martin O'Donnell


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. The nominator has ceded the point, and the still-continuing discussion is not likely to be constructive. Non-admin close. bahamut0013 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Francis_Martin_O'Donnell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * withdrawal: I'm withdrawing my nomination for deletion. Consensus so far is clearly keep, and I don't see a need to continue this debate. At the same time, I am now confident the article can be improved, based on this deletion debate. There is a clear consensus to tidy up the article, and trim down the puff. User DinDraithou has contributed some interesting insights here, based on his knowledge of Irish history. User Buckshot06 used the v-word in this debate. I would like to point out that usage of this word is strongly discouraged for legal reasons, and for reasons of political correctness. I won't oppose his general point of view though. Imho the article in it's current form is a WP:Coatrack for the subjects genealogical aspirations and claim to notability (A coatrack in the sense that contents of this article may be superficially true, however, the mere excessive volume of positive bias creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful). My concern that this article is at least partly autobiographical remains, yet, as stated, I am now confident that these issued can be cleaned up to an acceptable level, to create an article conforming with WP:AB and WP:NPOV. I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this debate. ReidarM (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Un-notable, does not meet WP:BIO. Few people have edited the article, leaving a whiff of sockpuppetry and WP:AB. The article includes numerous unreferenced statements. Being a retired civil servant with the United Nations, of whom there are tens of thousands if not more, hardly qualifies for notability. While the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) itself may meet the guidelines for notability, it is nevertheless a minor and somewhat obscure entity in world politics. Simply being an ambassador for SMOM hardly merits notabilty. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. References to alleged notability here seem to be of a rather trivial nature, such as drinking coffee with the wife of the president of Slovakia, rather than any substanstial accomplishments or honors. I see no evidence of well-known and significant awards or honors. On the contrary, awards and honors mentioned in the article seem to be rather dubious. Eg, there is no such thing as "territorial Baron" or a "title of Hereditary Lord Steward/Seneschal for an ancient Irish county" in present day Ireland. The title of "Seneschal" bears a striking resemblance to the wikipedia username who created the article (seneschally). Listing all unrefenced honors in this article (such as "Cross of Honour of Jerusalem, bestowed on him by the Custodia Franciscalis Terra Sanctae") and all factual misconceptions ("Excellency" is not a title, but a style) would make for a very long list. Whoever wrote this article and contributed to it, seems to have been exceptionally eager to establish notability. This article is either a poorly written autobiography (I won't mention the v-word), or simply some kind of hoax. ReidarM (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep The nominator seems to be conflating a number of issues here: suspected hoax, notability, verifiability, or just poor writing. There is a certain amount of puff in the article (see WP:PEACOCK) the extent to which it is properly sourced requires examination, but if we assume that the bulk of this is true then it does just about pass notability. Whether Excellency is a title or a style is nitpicking. I am not sure about the Irish titles issue, some Irish titles are still extant, see Peerage of Ireland, although it is suspicious that the earliest Irish barony still extant was created in 1397, well after King John. I have seen some very complicated discussions on Wikipedia about whether titles are still current in present-day republics. At present I am inclinded to keep, although I am open to persuasion if you manage to show that this is a hoax or manage to strip away a large amount of unsourced or dubious content. PatGallacher (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * comment: Fair point on nitpicking - but confusing styles with titles is often a giveaway for an impostor of some sort. As for the the Irish titles issue; the barony which is claimed here is not and was never part of the peerage of Ireland. indeed, even the article only claims that it is a "territorial barony", a construction which is often used by bogus title merchants. While I may not be not in a position to state that there are absolutely no authentic Irish "territorial baronies", many if not most of those are fabrications of varying degrees of sophistication which usually require hours of work to expose. Same goes for honors such as "the Cross of Honour of Jerusalem" etc. I agree with you, if we assume the bulk of this is true it might just about pass notability, however I don't see any references of evidence for this "territorial barony", the "Cross of Honour of Jerusalem" or the "title of Hereditary Seneschal", even after several google searches. I only see that the title of "Seneschal" bears a striking resemblance to the username of the user who created the article, and that it indeed contains a fair amount of peacocking, which again is very typical for autobiographical articles.ReidarM (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Cross of Jerusalem granted by the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land (Custodia Franciscalis Terrae Sanctae) is described in Italian here:Max Kaertner (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Just looking into this further, here is mention of him on the Order of Malta's website. Looking at Wikipedia and Debrett's, it looks as if Irish territorial baronies do retain some shadowy existence, although they do not form part of the Irish peerage, and there are bogus or cheap ones floating about, similarly with seneschals.  I don't think this article is a hoax although it might do with cleanup. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for the link. I agree, do not think the article is a hoax entirely. I do believe that Francis Martin O'Donnell is a real person, who 1) worked for the UN and 2) is a member of SMOM, currently representing SMOM in Slovakia. Imho the question is, are these two facts enough to establish notability? As for much of the rest, I think it is still rather dubious, hoaxical or irrelevant autobiographical peacockery. Eg, Take the claim to a "title of Hereditary Lord Steward/Seneschal for an ancient Irish county", there is a wikipedia article mentioning such a "County-seneschal": Vice_Great_Seneschal_of_Ireland - written by the exact same user (seneschally). Confusingly, this article states "Seneschal [...] is not a formal title", and then somehow seems to  leap from an obscure 18th century "functional role" to the father of Francis Martin O'Donnell. Rather suspicious. There seems to be a whole little network of articles surrounding the honors and awards of Francis Martin O'Donnell which will need a cleanup if this article is to be kept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidarM (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In Ireland, there are:
 * Baronies originally by writ, and subsequently by letters patent of the Crown (Peerage baronies);
 * Administrative baronies, which are territorial in scope; these are to some extent based on old feudal baronies, but are really only geographical units, often found on maps;
 * Feudal baronies, of which only a very few survive, now held in gross, if they were duly registered under the Registration of Deeds and Titles Act 2006, prior to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act (No. 27 of 2009).
 * Feudal baronies, of which only a very few survive, now held in gross, if they were duly registered under the Registration of Deeds and Titles Act 2006, prior to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act (No. 27 of 2009).


 * In regard to the latter, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 was passed by Seanad (Irish Senate) on 23 November 2006, following debate (accessible on www.oireachtas.ie) in the Report and Final stages, and a proposal (amendment no.8) by a member in the Seanad to prevent people from conveying feudal baronies and manorial lordships, and in fact to abolish the same by including a provision in the Bill that “in so far as they survive, titles of honour or dignity arising from feudal baronies and manorial lordships are abolished”, was rejected by the Government on the grounds that the Law Reform Commission had “examined the issue and come to the conclusion that whatever their origin in the feudal era, titles of honour had evolved over the centuries into personal rights now rather than interests in land and should not, therefore, be dealt with in this bill”, as stated by the then Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform, Mr. M. McDowell. The proposed amendment was thereupon withdrawn, and the Bill was subsequently duly enacted as the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act (No. 27 of 2009)  on 21 July 2009. The new Act accordingly abolished feudal tenure (five years after Scotland had), but preserved estates in land, including customary rights and incorporeal hereditaments, and as indicated by the previously-mentioned Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, titles arising from feudal baronies have evolved to be now held in gross as personal rights, and are not abolished, and in so far as they were classified as incorporeal hereditaments, their registration in the Registry of Deeds prior to 2009 survives (assuming the documentation submitted is authentic and without fraud).


 * Hence, in Ireland, most originally-feudal titular baronies have long disappeared through obsolescence or dis-use. They were never statutorily abolished, contrary to much recent popular internet critique – otherwise the parliamentary debates would have been absurd. Those few that thus survive at all have been traditionally considered to be "incorporeal hereditaments", and were considered as interests or estates in land, registrable as such upon conveyance or inheritance under the Registry of Deeds of the Government of Ireland, although increasingly these are seen today as titles held in gross as personal rights, and not as real interests in land, as observed by the Minister. However, the obsolete or unregistered feudal titles, and those that lapsed into desuetude after 1662, after the abolition of tenures act was passed by the old Irish Parliament, no longer exist as incorporeal hereditaments, nor as personal rights, and cannot be revived.


 * Such titles as were registered as incorporeal hereditaments before the Act of 2009, are in the public domain. Copies of the relevant registrations (“Memorial”) under the Registration of Deeds and Titles Act 2006, can be obtained on payment of a fee from the Irish Property Registration Authority. The registration of such titles in the Registry of Deeds serves to govern priorities between competing claims, and nothing currently in Irish law would prevent persons claiming to hold such titles and honours from continuing to claim them (exception made for cases of fraud, which under the legislation in force incur criminal prosecution), although given the Minister’s view that they no longer constitute interests in land, the new Property Registration Authority could decide to no longer register them.


 * If it can be proven that a title is bogus and the registration is fraudulent, the law does provide for prosecution and penalty. Amongst those artistocrats who have alienated (authentic) Irish baronial and/or manorial titles to others during the past few decades are the following:


 * The Marquess of Ormond
 * The Marquess of Bristol
 * The Earl of Shrewsbury, Waterford, and Wexford, Premier Earl of Ireland
 * The Earl of Cork and Orrery
 * The Earl of Kilmorey
 * The Earl of Lanesborough
 * The Earl of Rosse
 * The Earl of Shannon
 * Viscount Gormanston, Premier Viscount of Ireland
 * Viscount Bangor
 * Baron De Freyne
 * It is most improbable that such persons would have compromised their dignity by attempting to sell bogus titles. Unlike these, bogus titles have been sold by unscrupulous persons (e.g. google the so-called “British Feudal Investments”), who have been successfully prosecuted, mainly in the UK. Max Kaertner (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comment: On ReidarM's issue of "Excellency", I see no problem amending the text to reflect it as a style, but then please resolve the contrary view expressed in the wikipedia article on "Style (manner of address)", which says: "A style of office, or honorific, is a legal, official, or recognized title"; so a style is a title? Or not? Max Kaertner (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep once the vanity stuff has been trimmed down and all the photos are tidied up. This is good detailed diplomatic/political history, useful for future writers of various histories of UN, countries etc. But we should pare it down so that it is not a vanity article anymore. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: though I have near-total ignorance of European peerage titles and styles, it does seem that this individual is notable (and not a hoax). The remaining concerns can be resolved with cleanup, and deletion is not necessary.  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm now very, very suspicious. I initially reverted the nominator because it seemed bizarre to me, for which I'm sorry. Now I've looked at Ardfert and think we might have a genuine problem. I've checked both the Annals of the Four Masters entry (1601.40), and the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, and found that neither source says quite what our author would like. Possibly or probably Wikipedia has been featuring a certain family's genealogical aspirations. Without the support of a pedigree virtually all of this will have to be removed from these articles. You would think Burke's or O'Hart or O'Donovan would be referenced, but none of them are. The most thorough pedigree of the O'Donnells ever compiled and composed was done by my own cousin John O'Donovan and features in his appendix (pp. 2377 ff) in the back of his Volume VI of the AFM, and in it I find no mention of these alleged O'Donnells of Ardfert. There is nothing in O'Hart either. So we have a problem. DinDraithou (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pedigree not an issue - irrelevant to notability, and not claimed in article. We do not know that you are related to John O’Donovan (pedigree?;), however, he was a great historian. Nonetheless the AFM came out in 1856, and most of his sourcing, apart from GO/NLI was probably from Charles Joseph O’Donel of Castlebar who at the time was the most knowledgeable on the clan's genealogy. Since then, far more information has come forth to augment the various linked family trees, mainly as a result of the work of Rupert Coughlan who spent 40 years researching the O’Donnells (of Donegal/Tyrconnell).  Much of his vast archive of over 400 dossiers is in the Old Courthouse in Lifford. Have you checked there? Have you checked the multiple O’Donnell genealogies in the GO/NLI in Dublin, with vastly more information than O’Donovan’s partial account.  For example O’Donovan entirely ignores Sir Hugh Dubh O’Donnell’s first family (from whom, e.g. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill descends through a female line). You can find reference to the Ardfert-Lixnaw expedition sent by Hugh Roe O’Donnell in both the AFM, and the Life of Hugh Roe O’Donnell, as no doubt you have. However, note that the AFM was written around 1630, and the Life of Hugh Roe was written in the first decade of 1600, and is the more detailed and authoritative account, indicating that O’Donnell’s people (as distinct from just FitzMaurice’s) “plundered and preyed many of Fitzmaurice’s [Thomas, 18th Baron of Kerry and Lixnaw] enemies who were the cause of his having come into exile and banishment to O’Donnell, and three of the chief castles of the territory were captured by them, i.e. Lixnaw, Caislen Gearr of Ardfert, and Ballykealy, and they [i.e. “O’Donnell’s people”] left some of their people to hold them” (p.307). Logistically, Ardfert is the further of the line of projection of these O’Donnells from Hugh Roe’s camp in Connello.  Now, Fitzmaurice fled to the hills after the defeat at Kinsale, and was eventually captured, along with his entourage by Blois.  See CSP. Have you checked the pardons by James I/VI? They list the entourage pardoned, and include an O’Donnell (with typo error). Furthermore,  Thomas O’Donnell (of Aghanacrinna, between  Ardfert and Lixnaw) was a Jacobite lieutenant listed in 1699. By the way, O’Donovan ignored a line of French Counts, les Comtes O’Donnell, who claimed origin from Donegal, and bore the same arms with a cross-crosslet in gold held by an arm embowed on azure escutcheon.  Their line went extinct in 1879, but had Kerry connections as well. Information on these is in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, and the Archives Nationales (Wendel collection). Anyway, yes you do have a problem, because it was yourself and no-one else who listed Francis Martin O’Donnell into the “O’Donnell Dynasty” article as descendant nobility (on 2 December 2009), whereas no other wiki editor had claimed any such nobility for him. The Ardfert article indicates descent from “an O’Donnell” and does not indicate who, or that such persons were noble (they might have just been soldiers of Hugh Roe, but O’Donnells they were).  Lastly, it is a known folklore that the O’Donnells of Ardfert long claimed descent from those of Donegal, since the period of 1600s, and that there were none in the entire Clanmaurice swath of north Kerry before that time. Concerning this article’s O’Donnell’s pedigree, have you checked the article’s heraldic reference in the Genealogical Office in Dublin (Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland, Register of Arms, Volume Z, folio 87)?  Max Kaertner (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have reasons to believe that Max Kaertner is a sockpuppet account for Seneschally aka Francis Martin O'Donnell. Max Kaertner is currently editing the article in question, and just removed some of the more blatant examples of peacockery such as this (self?) portrait. [[Image:Triple-Knight Profile.jpg|thumb|Francis Martin O'Donnell]] Anyway, this discussion is clearly getting somewhere, DinDraithou contributions will be very helpful to clean up this and other articles related to Francis Martin O'Donnell and his family. ReidarM (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. Well, "I wish", but no. This discussion (and wikiedia policies) supported at least, any effort to tidy-up the article, and indeed, as Buckshot06 said, to tidy up the photos. Well, I don't think you can then attack the persons who follow-up accordingly. As for DinDraithou, he has an excellent record in correcting other articles, and sharing knowledge in the process has obviously benefitted his prior work too. I wonder why your own comments are so vitriolic? And how you jumped into this after your own account was dormant for almost 6 months.  Can you perhaps explain the  derogatory comment by 113.190.132.229 a couple of hours before?  Why would someone geolocated in Vietnam do that? Let's try to keep this discussion factual and not personal. Max Kaertner (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentI absolutely appreciate your efforts to tidy up the article (seriously:). I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article when I am confident that it can be tidied up sufficiently and without violations of AB. I am not aware of any derogatory comment by 113.190.132.229. Please accept my apologies for any vitriolic comments, I'll do my best to improve. As for why my account was dormant for 6 months...well I come and go on wikipedia, I contribute somewhat randomly, I believe there is nothing unusual about this pattern. I am not sure why you think this question is relevant for the deletion discussion here, but since you brought up the subject, it seems your account was dormant for 10 months before you suddenly joined this debate. I still believe you and seneschally are identical, and that you are indeed Francis Martin O'Donnell. I'd appreciate if you can address my concern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidarM (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: (forgot to vote before) Reply to ReidarM: Same story: intermittent interest in Wikipedia. Max Kaertner is a pseudonym (like you and others, I’m diehard anonymous), but I am Austro-American, living in Vienna, and attended an organ concert in the Votivkirche three years ago. When I delved into it’s history, I was fascinated by the 1853 assassination attempt on Franz Josef, and learnt about the O’Donell von Tyrconnells, and their Irish roots.  I toured Ireland two years ago, scouting out new takes on their story.  The interest continued into wider O’Donnell origins, heraldry, history, and their own internal rivalries often cleaning up non-sourced claims about other O’Donnells, and only latterly, Francis Martin O’Donnell, where I came across more on him by googling variations of his name.  I met him once in mid-2009.  My main interest is music, and I tour a lot. If you check my edit history, you’ll see my edits on his article have been very minor, with no substantive inclusions other than when I learnt of his retirement from UNO. Now, since you think he and I are the same, I’ll refrain from further editing on his article, but please do go ahead yourself – radically if you wish, or delete for that matter, tho’ I do think  there’s meat enough on him to justify retention of a slimmer bio. Max Kaertner (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What a weird story. Obviously they're at the very least closely related. Don't apologize to him again, ReidarM. He's just trying to confuse everyone by bravely citing the AFM and Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell again. Seeing how this isn't done properly we shouldn't trust his reference to this alleged vast collection. As far as I understand it the pedigree of the family done by O'Donovan (a maternal cousin of mine and thousands of other people, an easy thing to be, like half the people in southern Ireland, hence the joke) is still the one used to determine who the princes are. Surely there are many other pedigrees out there which are the products only of aspiration and speculation. "Family tradition" is what it's kindly called. The O'Donovans, a very minor family compared to the O'Donnells, have accumulated their fair share of these too, one or two even making it into Burke's believe it or not. Back to Francis Martin, I included him in the category only because his is a Knight of Malta and we find him posing with Hugo O'Donnell, 7th Duke of Tetuan in a picture in the prince's article. Then we have Francis Martin's father Patrick Denis O'Donnell and grandfather Denis O'Donnell. The claims are repeated. Local barons and of fine reputation or not they could be of any ultimate ancestry, for example like the famous O'Connell family. The pedigrees and traditions often magically appear after a family becomes established. That these are genuine O'Donnells of Tyrconnell, and thus collateral kin of some kind to the princely family, appears unsupported to me. DinDraithou (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Informed comment -- DinDraithou: How can you claim your “cousin” O’Donovan is “the one used to determine who the princes are”? (POV?) The Chief Herald’s office would have more say on genealogical claims. Neither Francis Martin O’Donnell nor the contributors to his bio article ever claimed nobility for him – except yourself.  Own up to your own mistakes (which you have just corrected), and stop attributing them to others.  Tyrconnell is Donegal.  O’Donnells of Donegal/Tyrconnell number in the thousands in Donegal to this day, and have a clan association in which the Austrian and Spanish nobles participate.  Straight to the point:   See page 7, under Rose O’Donel, viz Rupert Coughlan, who was widely published in scholarly journals, and well-respected by the Duke of Tetuan and the Graf O'Donell von Tyrconnell, who shared information, and never questioned his scholarship or intellectual honesty.  Call Gillian Graham of the Lifford Seat or Power heritage center to confirm the existence of the Coughlan collection on the O'Donnells: +353 (0) 74 41733.  It is vastly more detailed than O'Donovan's paltry few pages in Vol VI of AFM, incomplete as they were. The persons listed in the FitzMaurice pardon (who were survivors of the Ardfert-Lixnaw expedition, including O’Donnell) are listed in Irish Patent Rolls of James I, Irish Manuscripts Commission, 1966, references LX (page 46) and LI (page 56).  You’ll find plenty on the French counts on Gallica.BNF.fr, and further references on JSTOR. They ran several generations at least from 1690s when they left Ireland, through Edmond and his son Comte Sean/Jean, his son Comte Colomban-Hyacinth, his son Comte Jean-Louis Barthelemy, to Comte Sigismond Anatole O’Donnell, who died 1879. They were known through Madam de Stael to the Austrian O’Donnells, with one of whom she had an affair. She died in the house of the mother-in-law of Jean-Louis Barthelemy Comte O’Donnell.  Sigismond corresponded with Charles Joseph O’D of Castlebar, and with the Austrian O’Donells. Max Kaertner (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like my comments have proven pretty useful. Our editor, who now appears to be doing this and that from several IPs in addition to his probably two active accounts, was presented with a target and is firing at it. I don't know what to say about his last post here except that it has confused me. Since this is not so easy to do I believe this is deliberate and incredible. He can attack the O'Donnell pedigree done by the greatest Irish scholar of the 19th century, who didn't need to compile it, all he wants. It was done as a kindness to the princely house, so our editor is obviously not familiar with it or its purpose. Back to Francis Martin, he may very well lack the lineage he might have claimed to become a Knight of Malta. This all seems so elaborate I'm guessing the serious research began with his father or before. Descent from the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell should be easy to prove, but this is evidently not the case for them. Even a minor discard sept left behind in Kerry would have at least a partial pedigree recorded by someone somewhere. This claim probably has its roots in the 19th century when Gaelic lineage was becoming important again. DinDraithou (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
 * QED (quod erat demonstratum): you should be disqualified from this, as you have (a) failed to recognize references I gave you in the public domain, indeed in some cases on the internet; (b) your pretence as a so-called "cousin" of John O'Donovan puts you in a situation of flagrant conflict of interest; (c) I did not attack O'Donovan whose work I greatly appreciate (Vol., VI, pp. 2377-2420 is before me right now), nonetheless his pedigree of O'Donnell has been amply challenged both in GO/NLI and scholarly journals, and not least by the late Rupert Coughlan) - admit at least that he could not have got everything right in 1856; (d) you are advancing an unnecessary conspiracy theory on the basis of two geographically quite separated IPs, one in Serbia, one in Austria; (e) the edits made are not unreasonable; (f) you are the one who conflated this O'Donnell as a noble by linking his bio to the O'Donnell dynasty article which you got many elements wrong it until corrected by others, and you listed him as descendant nobility, not anyone else (you owe an apology at least for own errors, and not least for the withering defamation that you now foist on him - you would be fully liable in a court of law if your real identity was known, instead you hide behind a wiki-pseudo id and at the same time claim reflected glory and authority in the shadow of your (unproven) "cousin",John O'Donovan; (g) F.M. O'Donnell needed no falsification to become a knight of malta, and stood on his own merits, invested by invitation; just as he was knighted by Pope Benedict without any reference to any genealogy, and moreover at an unusually high grade. Get real and admit you were profoundly wrong. Max Kaertner (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got it now. So you're some sort of groupie cousin, or maybe his girlfriend, and you probably know someone in Serbia. Nice. Shame you've made this little mess here for him at Wikipedia. He I might now be willing to give some benefit of the doubt but you seriously need to get banned for all this misleading and this business with your various accounts and so on. DinDraithou (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Avoid polemics: You are usually well-intentioned and objective. On this O'Donovan thing, I am not so sure - put it aside - you can stand on your own merits, not his. On my side, nothing I have ever posted on Wikipedia is false or POV: check it out for yourself. It is all sourced, and authentic (and if proven incorrect, I would be the first to want to correct it - wikipedia is no use if not truthful). How you (mistakenly, perhaps, as we all might) interpret things, is another matter, my friend.  Now, why not deal with the issues on a factual basis? You need to be neither defensive nor offensive, but you could comment on the facts, and leave prejudice and opinions behind. Be substantive. You know a lot about a little, and a little about more.  Most of us are like that.  Mistakes are OK, as long as we learn. Deepen your knowledge - try to learn. You will gain much more insight from the many other sources I have given you. They are in the public domain, tho' not all on the internet. Call Lifford tomorrow - they can confirm the O'D archive, the manager is Gillian Graham. Max Kaertner (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cute. I'm not that interested since I don't have a drop of O'Donnell in me and have never met one. And maybe you'll answer that phone? Concerning O'Donovan, you've made it about him in the queerest way possible. I presented him as the most authoritative source of the three I listed, on the princely family. He is that, and he happens to be a distant cousin of mine. Oh wow, and it's not like I knew you were the other person when I said that. The problem is that any attack you might make won't make Francis Martin or you an O'Donnell of Tyrconnell. If there is a pedigree at the NLI/GO you should be able to link me to it. So far we haven't even seen the names of any of these alleged first O'Donnells left at Ardfert and elsewhere. Not one. Find me names. Not those of some later counts in Europe you allege were their descendants. This all looks like bullshit so far. DinDraithou (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Finale: No, I am not in Ireland to answer a phone in Lifford! Now why should I give you genealogical data? I told you where to find it, in the Patent Roles of James I, and in the Register of Arms, Volume Z, folio 87. The O'Donnell behind in Ardfert (but only for a few years; named in the Pardons) died later on the Continent on 5 September 1620, after injuries sustained in Ambrogio Spinola's crossing of the Rhine. He had a son, who had the same first name, who had a three sons, one called Sean who was outlawed  as a Tory (rebel) in 1674 (along with his 66 year old father), another being Thomas who served first as an ensign then as a lieutenant in Jacobite forces adjudged in 1699, and Edmond who founded the line of O'Donnell counts in France. The rest is abundant....and Francis Martin does not claim this and would NOT be the first in line of them, but rather a second cousin of his would. That's it. Max Kaertner (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * withdrawal: I'm withdrawing my nomination for deletion, as explained on top of this page ReidarM (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the withdrawal, although I notice you are continuing a campaign with other editors. For all, let me therefore summarise each one of your principle complaints about this article, and the doubts you cast on its veracity, as well as on the integrity of the awards mentioned. Here are the ensuing facts, which ought categorically eliminate any doubt or lingering suspicion of hoax or falsification:


 * ReidarM: “Being a retired civil servant with the United Nations, of whom there are tens of thousands if not more, hardly qualifies for notability”.
 * Response: O’Donnell was in his last two UN assignments, the Resident Coordinator, i.e. the top UN official in Ukraine and previously Serbia-Montenegro. These are senior appointments, of representatives of the Secretary-General, of which there are probably no more than 100 or so at a time. More senior ones would be SRSGs, in charge of peacekeeping missions, who rank as Under-Secretaries-General.
 * ReidarM: “the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) itself may meet the guidelines for notability, it is nevertheless a minor and somewhat obscure entity in world politics. Simply being an ambassador for SMOM hardly merits notability”.
 * Response: The SMOM has diplomatic relations with 104 countries and spends over €2 billion a year on humanitarian aid and social programmes; it has Permanent Observer status at the UN – hardly an obscure entity, albeit small compared to OECD’s major DAC donors.
 * ReidarM: “Awards and honors mentioned in the article seem to be rather dubious”.
 * Response: The three knighthoods are authentic, and references for each were given. All three are recognized by the Holy See/Vatican, and many others. The Ukrainian award from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, for O’Donnell’s work in defence of human rights there, is now referenced:
 * The Cross of Jerusalem award is an authentic Papal decoration, not a hoax:
 * The genealogical issue is not germaine, as no individualized claim of descent was made, other than from the O’Donnells of Ardfert, whose presence in the area dates from the 1600s, and not before, and who therefore came from elsewhere, for which the available evidence indicates Donegal (Tir Chonaill). It was DinDrathiou who ‘mistakenly’ categorized this O’Donnell as “descendant nobility” of the O’Donnell Dynasty, a point he fails to admit (although he has corrected it now).
 * Lastly, the "excellency" issue is semantic, whether a style is a title or not; it is a indeed style, usually referred in diplomatic terms as a courtesy title, as it is in pp. 18-22 of Protocol – The Complete Handbook of Diplomatic, Official and Social Usage, by Mary Jane McCaffree and Pauline Innis, published by Hepburn Books, Dallas, Texas, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1997; revised by Devon Publishing Company, Inc. Washington [ISBN 0-941402-04-5] (www.usaprotocol.com). This is the standard reference used at the White House and State Department.

I hope that you will now participate in objective editing of the article. Max Kaertner (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am posting this following exchange here as DinDraithou deleted it from his talk page – with an unwarranted expletive.Max Kaertner (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering also if I shouldn't alert whatever commission or association that this family is out there. He confessed that a second cousin wants to be a comte and might make some claim in France. Sounds like fraud having seen what we've seen, or not seen. DinDraithou (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are WAY overboard. To the best of my knowledge, none of the O'Donnells of Ardfert make ANY genealogical claims to any French or other noble titles. What I said, and meant, is that a second cousin of Francis Martin is senior to him in descent, and is the senior O'Donnell from Ardfert, and this on the basis of BMD information for Ardfert parish. So, please: stop the witchhunt, and stop the hyperbole. You are slandering people you don't even know, and you are ignoring the multiple corrections I make to your hyphotheses, and the sources I provide you - probably because you are in the USA (or the far east), and unable to physically access Irish records. I gave you verbatim the extract from the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell (LHROD), exactly as translated by Denis Murphy, SJ, MRIA in his 1893 issue of that book by Lughaidh O'Clery. The text differs from the AFM in the following manner: LHROD says O'Donnell (Hugh Roe/Red Hugh) "ordered FitzMaurice to remain with him until he knew the result of sending away the party" (to Lixnaw-Ardfert). It says O'Donnell's people (not just FitzMaurice's) "left some of their people to hold them". The AFM, written about 30 years later, only says "Mac Maurice (FitzMaurice) was permitted by O'Donnell to go with a party fo his army to visit and see Clanmaurice.......in these they placed warders of their own". This contradicts the earlier version, which I would regard as the more authoritative, given its contemporaneity with the events, and by a more directly informed person. Most likely, the AFM confuses a first expedition (without FitzMaurice), and then the fact that after that was successful, Fitzmaurice was allowed to go back with his own people to guard them. FitzMaurice, and his cousin/nephew, Gerald, had been up in Donegal already for a year, in refuge under Hugh Roe. BTW, just because O'Hart, O'Donovan, and others ignored this, and just because all the plethora of publications surrounding the anniversaries of the battle of Kinsale and later Flight of the Earls ignored it (all the maps of the route south to Kinsale by Hugh Roe ignore his stopover in Connelloe - Ui Conaill Gabhra -, and ignore the Ardfert expedition. But LHROD and AFM both describe it (varyingly). On the Feast of Saint Andrew, i.e. today 30 November, exactly, Hugh Roe visited Holy Cross Abbey to venerate a relic of the True Cross before his fateful battle. I urge you to pray to have the humility to accept that you CAN learn, and to retain an open mind on things until you can decide on the basis of objective proofs. I have no problem whatsoever to remove puffery from those articles, and pics as well. This discussion should remain dignified and objective, and you (and ReidarM) do a great disservice to the community of wikipedia editors by prejudicial comments and intellectually dishonest assessments. I see your pretended cousin JOD also had genealogical pretensions that he could not prove. In the case of the O'Donnells of Ardfert, they don't have any such. They just have a tradition of descent from the soldiers of Hugh Roe (as do the Castlegregory O'Donnells, a fact observed by J. Anthony Gaughan in his biography of Thomas O'Donnell, MP). And that's enough for them. Max Kaertner (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Max, I'm letting this go. No commissions or nobiliary associations will be notified and I will soon be forgetting this discussion. Hopefully this has all been a misunderstanding. Please understand that you have said some confusing things, even appearing to contradict yourself, and your approach has been very defensive/confrontational. So I responded as anyone might. Generally I'm very supportive of septs trying to reconstruct their histories, but you lost me when you went after me. Understand that in my heart I hope you really do belong to the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell, and remember that at first I supported you. What I'll do now is unwatch this and related pages. DinDraithou (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.