Talk:Middleton family/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Much shorter section about Pippa please

This is mainly a copy of Pippa Middleton with a few words on other family members. Since we had a very clear keep decision for Pippa, her section in this article should be condensed and get a link to the main article about her. --Adornix (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It would make more sense to merge that article here. There's little point in repeating the general family information.--Scott Mac 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We repeat the general family information in Catherines article too. It seems likely that Pippa will be the family member with the most media coverage and the family article would always have the problem to be an enhanced Pippa article. Better leave her with her own one. --Adornix (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems likely? See WP:CRYSTAL.--Scott Mac 21:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

:Pippa Middleton

Talk:Pippa Middleton - I redirected this here but its been reverted and we are now in a duplication content situation - if usersd object to the family article then we need to remove the duplication . Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you do that? St Anselm (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

Although I'm not sure I like the idea of having one page for all of her family members, if this page does exist, I think a better title for it would be something like "Family of Kate Middleton" since I'm sure there's more than one Middleton family in the world and that title does a better job of articulating what the purpose of this page would be. Thoughts? --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Multi-millionaires"

Only source for that claim was an article in The Scotsman with no further facts about the success of Party Pieces. I have no doubts that the Middletons are rich and successful but what a about a better source for multi-millionaire claims? Adornix (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete this article

I'm guessing that recentism is behind this sudden creation of Middleton family articles. Anyways, do we have articles Shand family, Spencer family, if Henry & Chelsey marry? are we gonna have the Davy family? etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deleting this Middleton family page for several reasons: 1) The information on this page is mainly a copy of the other pages like Pippa Middleton and Carole Middleton, 2) the other pages are notable enough to exist at their own, but the existence of this page at its own does not also add extra usefulness or information to Wikipedia, and 3) the Middleton family page itself should be deleted because the Middleton family as such as a House or Family is not notable enough. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently there has been a great deal of trivial news coverage about this family. Having one article about the family is much better than a lot of repetitive pseudo-biographies of its members. Hans Adler 09:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, but I don't agree with that. The separate pages are notable enough, see for example the AfD's of the page Pippa Middleton, which were all rejected and showed enough notability. But instead, I doubt the notability of this Middleton family page itself, as noticed and explained above. Also, I have the suspicion that the whole merging action is yet another attempt to get the separate pages being removed. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with deleting this article, but to have that considered the formal Afd process needs to be begun. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I will start a proper AfD procedure. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the deletion of the page -- some of it wasn't even true or correct ie her ancestry. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Knollys and Kate Middleton

There is no definitive evidence that Kate Middleton is the descendant of Elizabeth Knollys. The Daily Mail cites NO sources and is not a genuine source that is allowed on Wikipedia. Even the Reitwiesner's page just posted that is has been DISPROVEN.
"In Hobbs (full citation below), on p. 13, F. M. Lupton cites a pamphlet William Davenport, of Reading, and his descendants, by Rev. James Davenport, which claims that this William Davenport of Reading (number 636, above) was the same person as the William Davenport born at Worfield, Shropshire, on 24 Feb. 1679, a younger son of Henry Davenport of Hollon, Shropshire, by his wife Elizabeth Talbot.

Rev. James Davenport appears to have written several different works on William Davenport of Reading, as a correspondent refers to a publication by Rev. James Davenport, Rector of Harvington in Worcestershire, titled The Davenport Family of Reading and Welford on Avon, and printed in 1923 (long after Hobbs was printed). About the identification of William Davenport of Reading with the William Davenport baptized at Worfield, the correspondent states that the author "concludes that insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt." This identification has been DISPROVEN." -- meaning it's NOT true! -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Blood relationship ?

Peter Middleton (born 1934), British UK Chairman
Charles Middleton (1726 – 1813), British naval officer
Frederick Dobson Middleton KCMG, CB (1825 – 1898), British general
Hugh Middleton (1560 – 1631), Welsh goldsmith, clothmaker, banker, entrepreneur, mine-owner and self-taught engineer ? -- LeoDavid (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added them to Middleton (surname). Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Page title

It's ok to keep the article, but should it have this title? It's not about the Middleton family, it's about the family of the Duchess of Cambridge, should it include the Goldsmiths on her mother's side? Middleton isn't a particularly unusual surname, I have some distant relatives with that name, I don't propose to include them in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. If you look at the Public Profiler site you will see that it ranked 262 in frequency of surname in Great Britain in 1998 with an occurrence of 557 per million inhabitants. It also arises in different parts of the UK, suggesting different origins, so it cannot be assumed that Middletons are related. Defining the scope of the article much more tightly, including a rename, would enable the article to keep to the intended topic. --AJHingston (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
What about Middleton family (three Acorns), in clear assignment to their coat of arms, such a treatment isn't unusual. -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. They are known in the media as the Middleton family. Furthermore, it would be in agreement with assignment of their coat of arms. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- P.S.: can somebody revert the way too premature move to Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Pat's "Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge". It's a perfect title that everyone will immediately understand.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I had no problem with the original title but I agree it was slightly misleading. The new title is better. Hans Adler 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guidance on article titles helps here. In general article titles should make clear what the subject is - there are many notable Middletons already in Wikipeida and more will be added. THis article is about a distinct group of Middletons and if it were about all Middletons they would occupy only a small part. --AJHingston (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Overdetailed" tag

When editing this recently the accumulation of genealogical minutiae seemed to go beyond what the account of this Middleton family requires. I feel that there is more than enough about which celebrity has been written about in newspapers this year.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael Middleton

An article on Michael Middleton has been recreated. I thought that this may be of interest to editors of this page. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Carole Elizabeth Middleton

Carole Elizabeth Middleton is née Goldsmith. Is she releated to - Sir James Goldsmith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.18.232 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Carole's parents were both Jewish, and that, therefore, by Jewish tradition, Kate Middleton is also Jewish (as it is matrilineal) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.154.145 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You could say her parents were Jewish if and only if you could find and cite reliable sources for that. You cannot assume Carole or Kate are Jewish based on tradition, they would have to self-identify as such and you would need reliable sources to support that, especially in light of strict criteria for living persons. Helen Online 07:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Carole Middleton's possible descendent from King Edward IV needs further research. Only one genealogist has made the claim and that was two years ago. That is not enough proof. I would like to point out that when one well respected genealogist made the claim some years ago that the Duchess' father descended from Elizabeth Knollys, it was immediately assumed to be true without question but was ultimately disproven. More reliable sources are needed. I want to see the Duchess' genealogy done correctly. Information should not be added in just because we want it to be true. Virgosky (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Genealogists, like any other professionals, err. Since genealogy is a form of history and history is under constant revision, we could never cite it if we had to await some indeterminate point in the future when someone deems it infallible. If and when errors occur, they are corrected. Information should be included when relevant and documented in accordance with our reliable sources standard, with which this finding is in compliance. Who is adding this material because they "want it to be true" (why would any Wikipedia editor care?) and how do you know that? FactStraight (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I happen to be a genealogist from the UK. One American magazine article from 2011 that has not been backed up with other stronger documented sources is not in accordance with our reliable sources standard. Don't you think that if Carole Middleton was an actual descendent of King Edward IV that there would be more sources? A genealogists from the UK might have mentioned it? If this source has not been backed up in two years, there is no guarantee it is true. You can not put up speculative information and only take it down when it proves to be untrue. Virgosky (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the statement, 'which brings multiple lines of descent' is incorrect. The American magazine article from 2011 only shows one possible line. Multiple lines implies that Carole has several lines linking her to Edward IV. There is no evidence of that either. Just because you want it that way does not mean it is that way.Virgosky (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please respond on the talk page and stop reverting my edits. You are starting an unnecessary edit war. Virgosky (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As I thought, you are saying it's "speculative" because it hasn't been confirmed by a UK genealogist (which you claim you happen to be, although such a credential does not accord superior editing rights here to other contributors) even though it unequivocally meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. That's unacceptably nationalist: Wikipedia doesn't have a pecking order for reliability that depends upon the nationality of English-language sources. If it's documentable that "multiple lines of descent" aren't identified in the sources, I encourage you to correct that assertion in the article. Please respond on the talk page and stop reverting my edits. You are starting an unnecessary edit war. FactStraight (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me. You are the one who started the edit war and in order to get your way have threated the 3RR rule when you have made every effort to violate the rule yourself. I am done with this discussion and have fixed what I find to be fair. If you choose to edit that and bully me with the 3RR rule as you seem to do with other editors then clearly I am an not the one who has an issue. Virgosky (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me. If you consider my comment above, "Please respond on the talk page and stop reverting my edits. You are starting an unnecessary edit war", a threat it is because those are the exact words you had already directed toward me. Having failed to address the issues I raised here -- that the source under discussion entirely meets Wikipedia's reliable source standard and that your objection to it seems based not on a reliable source alleging inaccuracy but on the research having been done by an American rather than a Briton -- it is unreasonable to insist that I defer to your perspective in this matter. FactStraight (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit war has gone on for long enough. I have read the source which seems perfectly reliable to me. The stated descent is also clearly attributed (according to the source), so saying that she is a "possible descendant" in that context is incorrect as the source does not include any such doubt. I am not aware of any requirement for multiple reliable sources, and the facts in question are not that far-fetched. Regardless, it is not appropriate for editors to insert their opinion about a source or facts into the article text, that is what talk pages and noticeboards are for. Helen Online 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This user and I both disagree but because you agree with her, I get the edit warning on my Talk page? I will point out again that this is the only source which claims Carole's descent from Edward IV. Stating that she is a 'possible descendent' is not an opinion as there are no other sources to back up the claim. I would also like to point out that on numerous pages the Duchess of Cambridge is stated as being a 'possible descent' of Fairfax. There are more sources out there for that claim than this one. Can you please explain the difference? When you can explain the difference and find other sources then I will put it to rest. Until then, bullying and blocking threats are immature as I have done nothing wrong. Have a nice day! :-D Virgosky (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You got the user warning (which you removed) because you ignored my request to stop edit warring and discuss it on the talk page instead. Regarding other articles, please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Helen Online 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the Fairfax issue anyway and there was in fact a source cited for the uncertainty in that regard (a cautionary article by Anthony Adolph which is now outdated as new information has confirmed the connection). There has been no such source cited here, and it is not appropriate to caveat everything that might be incorrect on Wikipedia without a reliable source to back up the caveat (are you perhaps being overly cautious instead of neutral?). I have also added a second source by a British genealogist (the same Anthony Adolph, who is clearly not averse to caution) to this article supporting the claim. Helen Online 10:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

* My thoughts: - this discussion appears to the centre on the validity of a source that claims particularly ancestry. Please consider that a single reliable source is enough to support content in the absence of an opposing view that is also reliably sourced. Further, if at some point in the future the ancestry is challenged by reliable sources, then the article should be edited to reflect that - but what may happen in the future is not reason to challenge an existing reliable source. Editing must be the result of consensus and content should be an accurate summary of what reliable sources have to say on the subject; nothing more, nothing less. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No need. The issue has been resolved and inappropriate material removed. Thank you for assisting in our dispute, HelenOnline. It was most helpful. :-D Virgosky (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please try to resolve any future disputes by talk page consensus or ask for dispute resolution help if necessary. Even though other editors may not be directly involved in an edit war, watching it can wear us down and affect our tolerance levels. Please also state your policy-based reasons in your edit summaries, reverting edits without a valid explanation is not conducive to achieving consensus. Helen Online 10:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone missed this elsewhere, I found another possible source for the Edward IV descent, which I am checking is a reliable source before adding that content back. Helen Online 07:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have readded the Edward IV descent with a new reliable source based on feedback at the WP:DRN discussion, which is incidentally closing soon as resolved unless anyone objects there. Helen Online 08:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it. You cannot use a source that says, "If this descent is true" and call it reliable. Virgosky (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I will ask again that you do not remove another editor's content without giving a valid reason in your edit summary. You are engaging in tendentious, disruptive editing. Thus far I have sought to resolve this dispute in terms of content. If you insist on disruptive editing, you will leave me no choice but to follow the conduct dispute route.

Secondly, the source (which is the Channel 4 News article, not the article's author's website which incidentally was last updated on 17 June 2013 before the Channel 4 article was published on 22 July 2013) says no such thing.

Thirdly, regarding "accuracy", Christopher Challender Child and Anthony Adolph have both publicly supported the claim but unfortunately we cannot use their statements as sources here as they are essentially self-published in a journal, a website and a letter to the editor. I have been conservative in my wording, prefacing the stated relationship with "According to genealogist Patrick Cracroft-Brennan" as one can hardly dispute he said it. I am not aware of any reliable sources that refute the claim. Helen Online 07:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the DRN case has been closed with the following closing notes by TransporterMan:

The fact that a reliable source makes mistakes does not cause it to cease to be a reliable source. If that were the standard, then we would have precious few sources to use here. Most major newspapers, for example, are ordinarily accepted as reliable sources but they also regularly make mistakes. I stand by the idea that — again at least at first blush — Channel 4 is a reliable source for either what it says outright or for the fact that someone said something. You can feel free to challenge its status as a reliable source, but the fact that it sometimes makes mistakes or relies upon someone who isn't so much an expert as it says is not a reason to challenge it as a reliable source. When reliable sources report something, then it can — not must, but can — be included in Wikipedia so long as all other considerations such as UNDUE are met. If that is the case, and you believe the material to be incorrect, then the way to challenge it or qualify it is to find a different reliable source which says that it is wrong. But you cannot do so by researching and attacking the credibility of what it says yourself: that's prohibited original research. Note that I'm not saying that the information in the Channel 4 article should go in the article, that has yet to be determined and is beyond the scope of this particular case, I'm just saying that the article appears to cross the threshold; whether it makes it into the parlor is yet to be seen. To say this differently, you say, "when dealing with genealogy the assertion must be valid or these sorts of edit wars will continue," but the way that we determine validity at Wikipedia is whether or not it appears in a reliable source, if it does then it is verifiable and, as it says in a footnote at the verifiability policy, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." In any event, the dispute upon which this case was filed is resolved since it has been conceded that that source, as opposed to this new one under consideration, was not reliable. I am therefore going to close this case. A new case may be filed if a dispute on the new source or on some other matter cannot be resolved.

Helen Online 08:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If Cracroft's and Adolph's websites can not be referred to or used under WP:BLPSPS then the information does not belong in the article. Using Channel 4 as a means to sneak the information into the article under the term reliable sources does not mean you have edited anything conservatively. I have added some wording (which you will rush to remove) that ensures readers understand that Cracroft is simply suggesting.

Also, please note that the DRN case has been closed with the following closing notes by TransporterMan:

You believe the material to be incorrect, then the way to challenge it or qualify it is to find a different reliable source which says that it is wrong.

Since, I cannot remove it. I will source next to it a reliable source which discusses the Lumley-Plantagenet connection and states that it is wrong. Virgosky (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Cracrofts, The Complete Peerage states, "the assertion that there were any issue of this marriage is certainly not true". The fact that Cracrofts suddenly removed (uncertainty) from his website does not make his information accurate. Virgosky (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed the retraction. It is from a journal and not a new version of The Complete Peerage. Dispute has been resolved and I did what was asked. Please accept it. Thank you. Go open a new dispute section if you are so angry. Virgosky (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You removed it without citing any valid WP policy-based reason. Please explain why "It is from a journal and not a new version of The Complete Peerage." is relevant (citing a valid WP policy-based reason). The dispute has not been resolved just because you say so. Helen Online 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

According to TransporterMan the dispute was resolved and I did what he asked. Go open a new dispute section if you are so angry. You seem to have a lot time on your hands. Virgosky (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.Deb (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on ancestry

Hi, guys. Can we try and start with a clean sheet, please? I've taken the problem section out of the main article on Catherine altogether, so that we can just discuss it in one place where it really belongs.

I'm not an arbitrator or a dispute resolver, I just don't like to see conflict between editors where it's unnecessary. It shouldn't be beyond our capabilities to achieve a compromise here, and I don't think we're far away from that, so I would suggest the following approach:

No edit warring - in fact, no editing of that particular section at all without first discussing it here.
Let's all try and keep cool and civil and concentrate on achieving consensus.

Can we just try that for a couple of days?Deb (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Deb, that is fine with me. I would like to propose that we either restore the removed content with Peter Hammond's retraction to maintain a neutral point of view or remove the sentence about the Lumley-Plantagenet issue altogether (as undue). Helen Online 12:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Deb! The Complete Peerage information should remain and the retraction should not be restored. When there are errors found in the The Complete Peerage either the error is corrected before it is published or a new version is published to correct any errors. Neither has occured. However, that being said, I purpose that since there are too many contradicting and questionable sources, the information about the possible link to Edward IV's illegimate daughter should be removed. Virgosky (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If the articles concerned describe event that occurred long ago, WP:BLP should not be a problem - they are not part of the living person's biography, (which deals with the person's life), but are part of the person's ancestry and in no way affect the person's position. In such cases, if there are opposing views we should give both views, but write "X says ...., while Y says ....". Wikipedia is then quoting X and Y, not stating a fact. In this way, as more views emerge, Wikipedia can be updated to reflect the change in the views of the experts. Martinvl (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A correction need not be printed in The Complete Peerage, as if that or another British source were the only ones compliant with RS. The correction can and should be made when documented in accordance with English Wikipedia's criteria. FactStraight (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FactStraight, please stop your edit warring. Deb has asked that we discuss this before making any further edits. The retraction would need to be printed in a newer version of The Complete Peerage.

No, it does not, because Wikipedia is not confined to reliance upon information printed in any one source. FactStraight (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

HelenOnline, if you are going to ask other editors (who agree with you) to assist in achieving a 'fair' consensus, I suggest you ask they at least follow the rules. Thanks so much! :-D Virgosky (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Virgosky I have asked all editors not already aware of the discussion who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic or a closely related topic to help build consensus, so please do not suggest otherwise. That includes Deb, who hasn't even expressed her view about this yet. It should be painfully obvious by now that I have no control whatsoever over whether other editors (namely you) play by the rules. Helen Online 07:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have stated my proposal in terms of Wikipedia policy (see WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS for further details). It would help a great deal if you stated your proposal in terms of Wikipedia policy and avoided vague statements such as "there are too many contradicting and questionable sources" (I only count one contradicting source, namely the retraction of the error published in Complete Peerage). Which policy prevents us using the retraction? Which sources are you calling questionable and why? How can you expect others to take you seriously if you don't give valid reasons for your edits and push your edits through by harmful edit warring. You may even be right, but we will never know this way. Helen Online 08:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with this summary of the issue. There is no reason from a wp guideline or policy standpoint to prevent the restoration. The sources meet WP:RS and I don't see any valid reason to discount them. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad too, but you would simply ignore it and continue the edit war. Besides, your proposal in terms of Wikipedia policy (see WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS for further details) does not apply in this case. If it did you would have opened another dispute section. Instead you attempted a Talk page consensus in which my proposals will have no chance of being acknowledged. That being said, I will continue to abide by the results of the first dispute because it is clear that achieving any consensus will be impossible. I don't need to win at any cost, this is not personal for me. :-D Virgosky (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I don't quite understand all of that, except the part about you assuming bad faith. Why on earth would I go to all the trouble of trying to build consensus if I had no intention of abiding by it? I didn't open another dispute resolution case because I tried that already and we are back to square one with edit warring (and I am not going to waste the volunteers' time again). You appear determined to remove or discredit the content in question regardless of which sources are used (for reasons I cannot fathom). The first dispute is no longer relevant, so I don't know why you keep harping on about it. By the way, it is not clear to me that achieving consensus is impossible. Helen Online 07:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To all contributors - It would be a good start if we did not assume that everyone except us is going to continue edit warring if we don't? Deb (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Deb. That is why I purposed that the information be removed to avoid any future edit wars. Otherwise, the information should stay in as is because The Complete Peerage states that there were no issue from the marriage. Patrick Cracroft-Brennan is stating that it was a an error. However, the issue I take with Cracroft-Brennan is that he only added that information to his website after this debate began. He has been updating his website accordingly ever since, which does not make for a reliable source. Until there is a new version of the The Complete Peerage fixing the suggested error, any retractions do not belong in the article. Virgosky (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone has lost the plot, the retraction I initially added and propose restoring is by Peter Hammond, editor of the last volume of The Complete Peerage, in an article in The Ricardian not the statement in the Cracroft's Peerage website. As for your proposal, we don't remove content simply because one editor doesn't like it. Helen Online 16:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking it out is certainly one way of getting rid of the problem, but it could still recur in the future. Is it really not possible to find compromise wording without having to go into the full detail of what the sources may have said at any particular date? Deb (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Deb can you please clarify what you mean by "it"? I earlier proposed taking out the sentence about the Lumley-Plantagenet issue (one source saying there was none, and another retracting that statement). I believe Virgosky is proposing removing the whole paragraph about descent from Edward IV's daughter. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page. Helen Online 17:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was referring to Virgosky's suggestion of removing the whole paragraph. Effective, but a bit drastic. Deb (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can tell the only person that would satisfy is Virgosky (and yourself). I can't see any valid grounds for preventing anyone else from readding it so I don't see it as an effective solution at all. Helen Online 20:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is drastic, Deb, but just look at what has occurred over the last few days. It was suggested by you to leave the information as it is for now and try to achieve some sort of consensus. While we have been trying to do that other editors have taken it upon themselves to make changes, so it is clear the edit war may not stop even with a consensus. If the information is left up it will be tempting for other editors to start wars but if the information is removed it would stop some of it. I think it was a stretch to allow the information in the article at all considering Channel 4 is being used as a source. However, I am also perfectly fine with the information staying in as is but leave out the claimed retraction. Until a new version of The Complete Peerage is published to reflect the retraction, it does not belong in the article. I do not see how both of those suggestions are unreasonable. Virgosky (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Deb's suggestion was not "to leave the information as it is for now" (i.e., the version as you last edited it), but for "no editing of that particular section at all without first discussing it here". You continue to edit the article, "drastically" as you acknowledge, to reflect only information included in the sources you select as authoritative and without regard to input from the majority of editors also contributing to the article. I am editing the article: 1. in accordance with Wikipedia's policy that information provided in sources compliant with its reliable sources standard suffices as documentation for included information and 2. consistent with the comments, above, of Helen Online, Martinvl, Flat Out and myself: you alone continue to edit to exclude that information against consensus, which is an unacceptable resolution to the matter at hand. FactStraight (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand now why I feel removing the whole paragraph is best, Deb? Again it will stop the edit war and everyone can cool down for awhile. Virgosky (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no edit war. There is you with an opinion but no solid argument, insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Flat Out: Saying "I'm reverting to the version I alone prefer while other contributors 'cool down' until they accept that I am right and they are all wrong" is not going to fly. FactStraight (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Virgosky previously removed the whole paragraph (for reasons only known to them as the reason they gave no longer applies, i.e. one American source was not good enough for them). It didn't work, because it has no basis in policy. Suggesting we try that route again is pointless. Helen Online 06:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My compromise proposal is to remove the sentence about the Lumley-Plantagenet issue. Virgosky removes the published error and I remove the published retraction. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. More importantly, it maintains WP:NPOV which is not negotiable regardless of any consensus reached here. Helen Online 07:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

:I support this compromise. Do we have consensus? Flat Out let's discuss it 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the quote and adjusted the sentence to state that The Complete Peerage itself shows Elizabeth Plantagenet as having no issue. The Complete Peerage itself would have to be updated in order to reflect any retractions. Deb, I know that you are not an arbitrator or a dispute resolver but do you know someone who is so that we can resolve this dispute? I do not see how achieving a consensus can happen when the debate has turned into personal attacks and finger pointing. Virgosky (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that's even worse. Why would anyone want to fudge a typographical error and present it as fact, and repeatedly remove a published retraction of the same error? I want to assume good faith here, but there is clear evidence to the contrary. Helen Online 14:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If the information from the most recent version of The Complete Peerage is wrong then why was it published? More importantly, building a consensus which implies that The Complete Peerage is wrong is to suggest that there is other questionable information within the text. Therefore, other editors now have the right to start consensus discussions or disputes if they disagree with any information that is sourced by the The Complete Peerage. Furthermore, any genealogist who uses the The Complete Peerage as a source in their work are now questionable. In other words, stating that The Complete Peerage is wrong by a retraction before a new version is published to reflect that retraction is to open a can of worms. Virgosky (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a straw man. Please focus on the issues under discussion here instead of going off on imaginary tangents. Helen Online 16:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, The Complete Peerage does show Elizabeth Plantagenet as having no issue and the section from the text has been sourced. If you choose to disagree with me by using personal attacks then that is your purgative. I am sorry that this discussion has turned so personal for you. Virgosky (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

...And a subsequently published reliable source documents that the CP erred in this regard. The overall validity and reputation of CP is not relevant to this article, whereas the fact that it's assertion in this specific case has been contradicted is relevant and includable. Consensus here supports that. You are free to seek to change consensus, but until we see that change reflected here, your edits to the article in defiance of consensus aren't acceptable. FactStraight (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, The Complete Peerage does show Elizabeth Plantagenet as having no issue and the section from the text has been sourced. Also, in fairness, Channel 4's Cracroft-Brennan quote remains in the article. This 'consensus' was about a retraction. A retraction to a quote that did not belong in the article because The Complete Peerage is enough of a source. I made the adjusted edit by removing the quote and mentioned it on the Talk page. If you choose to disagree with me by using personal attacks then that is your purgative. I am sorry that this discussion has turned so personal for you, as well. You certainly are free to start another 'consensus' against The Complete Peerage, perhaps it will fly. Virgosky (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthwhile continuing this discussion as Virgosky fails or refuses to hear other editors. I have asked them for valid policy-based reasons supporting their edits to no avail. Their insistence on presenting an error as fact is also a major cause for concern. I believe there is consensus to restore the retraction, and will do so. If Virgosky's disruptive editing continues, I will look to WP:DDE for guidance. Thank you to everyone who made an effort to resolve the matter. Helen Online 04:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So be it. Yes, thank you HelenOnline's friends, whom she asked to assist her. A dispute section was exactly what I asked you to reopen in the first place which would have avoided all of this 'mock consensus' and bothering Deb. By all means please go to WP:DDE for guidance. I just hope this time you will except the results.Virgosky (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This matter is now being dealt with at this ANI discussion. Helen Online 12:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Catherine, Duchess etc page. I propose a small print "note" section under the ancestry section both the "Duchess" and the "Family of..." pages. HSC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.97.230 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

My amendments

Right. I made a start by doing the only thing I feel qualified to do at this stage. The reference to Cracroft-Brennan that was present did not actually mention Conyers and therefore I don't think it should be used to support the argument, so I have changed it to the Anthony Adolph reference. If I'm not mistaken, you are all saying that Anthony Adolph changed his tune somewhere along the line. What do you agree on and what do you disagree on?

If anyone feels that I am doing the wrong thing by making this amendment (or indeed any amendment at all under the circumstances), please tell me and I'll go away and bother you all no more. Deb (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The source cited for Cracroft-Brennan says: "Patrick Cracroft-Brennan says: 'The duchess's royal ancestry comes to her through her ancestor, Sir Thomas Conyers, ninth baronett [sic], of Horden, Co Durham.'" As we are attributing the information to specific people (in order to be conservative regarding statements of fact), I think we should cite both Cracroft-Brennan and Adolph. Adolph changed his tune about a different line and Cracroft-Brennan had cast doubts on this line but has also subsequently changed his tune. These developments were all based on SPS so are not used in the article. Helen Online 10:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, that's not the source I saw - there must have been 2 articles citing Channel 4. I'll put that one back then.Deb (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I do think they should both be there to show it is not only one person's view. Helen Online 11:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, Deb's edits seem to be fair improvements to the article, consistent with the consensus expressed on this talk page. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Virgosky added the information from the Complete Peerage in order to cast doubt on their views (see dispute resolution case for further background). I think the main thing we disagree on at this stage is the inclusion of the subsequent retraction of this information by the editor of the Complete Peerage. In my opinion, Virgosky not allowing others to include the retraction as a "right of reply" of sorts is not only downright misleading it is not NPOV. I personally think the whole sentence should be removed as undue but I don't think we can achieve that until we have achieved NPOV. Helen Online 10:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all good at editing. I would like to stress that it is wrong to incorporate a typographical comment evident in a a volume which, if one reads an earlier issue of, would clearly indicate that there has been a mistake - the editor, Hammond, has subsequently retracted the mistake/typo. There are so many published versions of teh Lumley-Plantaganet marriage - not to mention photos online of people standing beside the tombs of ISSUE of the Lumley-Plantaganet marriage. There is NO NEED to reference the Complete Peerage mistake at all - it is, as Helen points out, and Cracrofts Peerage, terribly misleading. It is akin to dropping all the proven information that, for example, the Queen Mother's parents were so and so and yet referencing some information that she was, according to a typographical error, the daughter of someone else - when all the evidence suggests otherwise! Cheers M.E (Ted) Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.10.139 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, please can you point me to a reference showing the retraction? Deb (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I previously added the sourced retraction to the main article in this edit and to this article in this edit. See also Non-RS source here and here. Helen Online 16:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have the full context of his statement? My main concern is - was he speaking as editor of the Complete Peerage or as an individual? Deb (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It was in an article he wrote in his personal capacity in 2003. The last volume of The Complete Peerage (which he edited) was published in 1998. I did not include the retraction as a correction to The Complete Peerage per se, but as a conflicting source attributed to an individual who happens to have been the editor of the first source. Helen Online 17:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you feel about the way the article looks just at the moment, Helen? Deb (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I would add "According to genealogists Patrick Cracroft-Brennan and Anthony Adolph" and the conflicting source re The Complete Peerage information. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Thanks. Helen Online 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should consider this carefully. Adding the Adolph reference is quite defensible, but the conflicting source on the Complete Peerage I'm not so sure about. Deb (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The only alternative I can think of is to remove the sentence altogether. 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In view of the debate that's gone on previously, I can see that it may not go down too well to suggest that the editor's comment in 2003 doesn't rescind the content of the 1998 publication - however, strictly speaking, it does depend a bit on the circumstances. Supposing, for example, that he implied he had never believed that Elizabeth Plantagenet had any children but had been overruled by consensus of the editorial team on the 1998 edition, then clearly his view as an individual, though it might carry weight, wouldn't be evidence that the book was wrong. On the other hand, if he said that he had made a mistake when he printed it and had since seen evidence that it was wrong, that would be different. I think it would be a good thing if we could make that clear. Deb (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I had to get some sleep, back online now. I understand the CP wording was a typographical error. Ted (above) previously posted this:

Cracroft-Brennan explains - "The Complete Peerage article on the Lords Lumley (Vol VIII p.274) does not say that there were no children from this marriage (patently not, as Richard, 4th Lord Lumley, was the son of Sir Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet) but that there was no evidence of the marriage. Given that the marriage was in the late 15th century this is not unusual. In the Addenda & Corrigenda to the Complete Peerage (p.457) Peter Hammond gives two sources for the evidence for this marriage. His last sentence reads: 'The assertion that there were any issue is certainly not true.' Given Peter’s earlier comments, this is obviously a typo and it should read: 'The assertion that there was no issue is certainly not true.'

There are other sources regarding the issue themselves and their lives which I have not bothered with as I thought it undue for this article. I will see if I can find anything else from Hammond himself about the typo. Helen Online 05:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You can actually view inside the CP volume in question at amazon (search for 457 to get to the relevant page). One source provided as evidence for the marriage says: "Thomas Lumley ... married Elizabeth, bastard da. of Edward IV, by whom he had Richard, Lord Lumley, and other issue...". I also found an online source for the original CP entry in which their son Richard, Lord Lumley is listed on page 177 (in Volume V of the 1st edition, the 2nd edition is not online as far as I can tell). Helen Online 05:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If necessary, we could cite the same source as contradicting itself. Helen Online 05:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the inclusion of The Complete Peerage amount to WP:SYNTHESIS anyway? (it does not refer to Catherine's ancestry at all) Helen Online 06:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct in that. Deb (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the silence - I haven't gone away, I am just pondering on how best to achieve consensus about the wording. Deb (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. IMHO the inclusion of the CP info, especially when prefaced by "but" or "however", implies doubt about the previous sentence which is not a position advanced by either of the sources (WP:SYNTHESIS) and is therefore original research which was especially warned against in the (content) dispute resolution case closing notes. Helen Online 13:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021041104/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/prince-george-related-llywelyn-great-5385491 to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/prince-george-related-llywelyn-great-5385491

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121018183959/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O40-Middleton.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O40-Middleton.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Poor references

I have removed several Daily Mail references but wonder why several others are considered reliable such as Hello magazine and other tabloid sources and the Leodis photographic site. Esemgee (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is an exercise in name dropping.

This article is an exercise in name dropping. The interpretation of the Middleton and Lupton ancestors as landed gentry or aristocracy is nonsense. They were wealthy but at best they were tradesmen and businessmen who became professionals, ie lawyers. They didn't have ancestral seats but were property and landowners, not the same thing. They held civic positions and in that capacity entertained royalty. Kate Middleton is not a direct descendant of the Kitsons so why that photograph is there I don't know. Sources taken from the descriptions of photographs on "Leodis" cannot be described as WP:RS. Esemgee (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree - this article is very well researched. Regarding the "status" of the Middleton/Lupton family. There are books published decades ago as well as the reliable Leeds Photographic Archives (which contains comments based on contemporary newspaper reports) which outline that the Lupton family were Yorkshire landowners from the 18th century - see "Further reading" section on this page. The Beechwood Estate in Roundhay is still - (in 2014) - in part owned by members of the Lupton family. At least 5 generations have owned the once large estate - well over 400 acres as recorded. This philanthropic family had a coat-of-arms granted to Yorkshireman Dr Roger Lupton by Henry VII which the Leeds-based Lupton were using in 1921 as the crest for Olive Middleton's family firm - William Lupton & Co. - which Olive had inherited. This page makes it clear that members of the Lupton family were indeed "titled". This page is not only about Kate Middleton's ancestry. It is about the history of the Middleton (and to a lesser extent the Lupton) families themselves. 101.182.51.93 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an over-referenced article containing every trivial mention in any newspaper or online source. Titled is not the same as aristocratic, landowners are not landed gentry. Some Luptons were indeed 'titled' but not all of them and little mention is made of the business, where it was or how it contributed to the economy, instead it is about social life, titles and social connections. Information was added haphazardly and it had no structure. It is a poor example of an encyclopedic article. Esemgee (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Please see the Lupton family page which goes into enormous detail about the history and progress of William Lupton & Sons (later "& Co") from the 18th to the mid 20th centuries. Books written decades ago reference Francis Lupton (d.1884) of both Beechwood and Newton Park Estates and his sons. Such books saw fit to reference this family based on their position in society as belonging to the "Titled, Landed & Official Classes". Moreover, many editions of Burkes Peerage records many members of the Lupton family, including the death in 1974 of Lady Bullock, nee Barbara May Lupton of Leeds. Please see the "Further reading" section at the bottom of this page.101.182.51.93 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not the Lupton article and it is over-referenced. Further reading should not contain quotes. It is a compilation of society trivia. It needs more reorganising for some kind of coherence. How many times does it mention Prince Philip's co-pilot? Too many. Esemgee (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I like your structural improvements to this page. 101.182.51.93 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This article references books from publishers/writers that are respected. Lupton "family seat" was Beechwood, which was theirs from c 1859; they still own parts of the estate today! There are NO references in any books recent or historic or newspapers whereby the Luptons of Leeds are described as "Nouveau riche". We have checked. This idea of yours is all in your imagination. Please, Please accept the recorded facts. Cheers 101.182.141.22 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is in my imagination, they made their money from commerce and property and nothing wrong with that. You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers, on photo captions or even the internet. Reporters are not historians. I don't know who "we" is but I am just one person and I log in. Do you have some connection to this family? You are very intent on providing a somewhat embellished version, trivial nonsense and all. I stand by what I wrote, "the Luptons were not aristocrats, they were nouveau riche of the 19th century and made their money through commerce and this article aims to mislead". Esemgee (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Carole Middleton's Family

Why is there nothing on Carole Middleton's family? This is all about Kate's dad's family. Arg Matey (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There is some information on Carole on this page. She was born Carole Goldsmith. This page is about the history of the Middleton family; Michael Middleton gets much attention as do other prominent Middleton relations/people. Carole Middleton has her own page. 175.33.51.23 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC

Please not that, as per WP:HONORIFIC, correct title of person is given firstly on the page - and then any other references are usually followed by surname only. Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Template Noble House

I think that this idea is good, in fact, maybe this article should be retitled - Pippa Middleton is a well known figure - the title: Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is misleading as Catherine's sibligs, Pippa and James have their own Wikipedia articles etc etc. It really should be Middleton family. Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Declined to Study at Oxford

What does this mean? Did he have an offer from Oxford? If not, in what sense did he decline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.101.243 (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This does seem rather odd and ought to be addressed. The reference says: "However, he decided against studying at Oxford University as his father and other relatives had done. He instead became a flight attendant at BA, where he met his future wife Carole." Why is there no mention that he was a flight attendant? And why is there a suggestion that he had an offer from Oxford that he declined to take up?

Agreed, it's all confusing and irrelevant - I've deleted that whole Oxford paragraph. Bob talk 18:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is inappropriately and overly detailed and is turning into a book

Due to the ceaseless efforts of certain editors, this article attempts to contain every possible citable detail regarding this family, whose significance, as a family, is rather modest. I propose that the length of this article be reduced by 90 percent or more, in keeping with the desire of Wikipedia to offer encyclopedic content, which summarizes the high points of a subject, rather than amassing lengthy, detailed narrative which does not, and cannot, advance human understanding.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; information has been removed which was superfluous. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)