Talk:House of Candia

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Normandy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More details?[edit]

Hello I posted this page, could you provide more specific details about the clean-up tag, since I have dyslexia, please if you have detected some many clean-up needs, could you include the editing corrections or make notes of what are these cleaning needs. I am open to your comments and specialized help. I always like to have a full report on any literary critic or comment, I thank you in advance for all your help and full participation. Once again thanks! ridertoby

The article is very weak in sources, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynastic House of Candia. The article was not deleted. However, in the Italian wp a similar article was deleted by this RfD. "There wasn't any history of the family, it was a poorly formatted list of people; suspected copyvio."

So, some modern academic sources that this was actually real would be welcome. I am particularly suspicious of the link Candia - Scandia. /Pieter Kuiper 13:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False coat of arms reintroduced[edit]

I had removed the following section, because its unlikely content was completely unsourced (diff):

Roger de Candiæ was the son of Odo and grandson of count Crispin d’Arnès, of Normandie Anjou-Chateaubriant, in Italina Crispiano Signori d'Arneis del Roero, in Latin GUAFRIDUS CRISPIANUS SCANDIA, in English Godfrey Crispin of Scandinavia, and in French as Guyfred de Crêpon Scandie des Danes,(modern French: Godfrey de Crépon Candie), son of Gunnora de Crépon of the Nobles House of Danes.

From historical records and church documents, we found his name registered in various different ways, since some times he is recorded by his given name others by his feudal titles or in others by his maternal or paternal house titles; in all events there are common links that make easy to identify Roger de Candiæ son of Odo son of Godfrey Crispin son of Gunnor de Crêpon and the link to the House of Normandie of Richard I.

Last night this was reintroduced in a long session of edits, still completely without references. The paragraph with its "we found his name" is formulated as original research. The figure caption is false. The file is called "Wappen Deutsches Reich - Herzogtum Braunschweig (Kleines).png". It has nothing to do with anything in this article. /Pieter Kuiper 07:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Crepon myself I'd love to know from John, who I believe is the one who wrote the article the way it was, what documents and if he can show copies of them somehow, if he took pictures etc... I'd love to know if my family Crepon is in fact linked with Candia or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.237.4 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions about the article, not personal genealogical research. --Macrakis (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm asking an older contributor who has been blanked for his sources, and yes it pertains to my own geneology. That isn't the purpose of my question, as it has more than one purpose. One would be to establish the legitamicy of this contributor's sources if he has any, and to see whether he does or not. I've sent him an email though and gotten no response, so I'm assuming it's bunk information... There appears to be no link between my [Crepon] family and house of Crispin or Candia. I found his website which claims his whole purpose is to establish a theory as to the origins of Freemasons, Templar, etc... Stuff which may well exist but generally is contemplated by speculative scholars at best. So, please don't talk down to me when I made a very honest post and simple request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.237.4 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a fraud[edit]

This article is someone's fantasy. Although history includes plenty of references to "Candia" they do not add up to a historic dynasty as it claims. Amazing that this article has survived this long by patching bits of history together and citing original texts which no one has timee or access to verify. FactStraight (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article should in fact be deleted as blatant nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.76.143 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My blanking note[edit]

Not being a member, I blanked this article altogether, hoping a member will show up and delete it. The whole piece is fantasy monarchism, with no actual sources for anything (the only sourced things were elements that are indeed factual, but none of the jumps in logic to make the whole assemblage were sourced. The original author also repeatedly reintroduced blatant fraud elements, like a completely fictitious scandinavian aristocrat (whose french name is unlikely; the french for Danish has never been Danes and the names is written in modern french anyway), or attributing the arms of the duchy of Brunswick to some wholly invented character. There was no house of Candia, the french barons of Candé have nothing to do with the Venetian province of Candia, neither do the dukes of Gandia, which was a minor catalan estates raised to a duchy to reward the Borgias, and that's about it.

Additionally, the fact that people not only did not delete this piece of utter nonsense, but restored it and are doing various cleanups, is a complete joke. The only way to improve it is to delete it. 216.252.74.53 (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]