Talk:Louis I, Duke of Bourbon

Peter of Bourbon

Please do not add unsourced assertions concerning the end of male line, when 1)the statement is wrong and 2)is unsourced. Doing a little research (hint: House of Bourbon-Busset) never hurts.

• "The House of Bourbon-Busset descends in male line from Pierre de Bourbon (1464–1529), the eldest son of Louis de Bourbon, Bishop of Liège (1438–1482), who was a son of Charles I, Duke of Bourbon."

To break it down:

• Peter I--Louis II--John I--Charles I. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry Trees for Bourbon members keep being removed

Trying to restore the ancestry trees that were added quite some time ago and recently removed has been continually blocked and reverted. I agree to try not to clutter these pages up, but the argument to say that the ancestors of the male members of early House of Bourbon is not relevant comes across itself as dubious. Many pages of people with lesser status and roles in history include an ancestor tree on here. I don't know if this is due to a personal bias or something similar towards these individuals, but to have the ancestry trees given for the several founding members of the House of Bourbon was done for good reason, as they were not only the male progenitors of the later Bourbon Dynasty but leading individuals in military and government affairs in their day, and is completely reasonable and far from excessive. --JLavigne508 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Louis I of Bourbon was a military and political leader in his day. No, that does not mean his mother's father's father's mother needs to be named. Please see the discussion at Template talk:Ahnentafel. The genealogy of the House of Bourbon is given at the House of Bourbon article. It need not be repeated in individual biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Then why are they named for the comparable Dukes of Lancaster Wikipedia pages? Why are they listed for anyone then? I do not see the logic. There isn't even a link to any of the Bourbon pages on these ones. These trees were added a long time ago and for good reason, and I am about to send this over to a third party.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

They are named because people did so without discussing or consulting anyone. They just saw it done in some articles and copy-pasted it across hundreds of articles, all without sources or any discussion. Just like you did today. This practice was discussed and deprecated at Template talk:Ahnentafel, and I keep pointing you to that venue. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I restored additions that were done early on in Wikipedia, you were the one that drastically altered it in recent months, secondly, the Template talk:Ahnentafel is just a bunch of people arguing semantics. The family trees for these individuals is appropriate and is being sent over for third opinion.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Surtsicna. I see no reason for any information(genealogical or otherwise) to be present in an article when not supported by reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion given. The "bunch of people arguing semantics" have produced a consensus; if you wish to challenge it, please refer, again, to Template talk:Ahnentafel. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The question was submitted for a neutral third opinion. It hasn't been explained how any of that applies to removing the ancestry trees for the several pages in question.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems that by neutral, you mean equivalent to your own. The explanation you are looking for is in the discussion you are refusing to read. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No I mean the Wikipedia Third Opinion page, I've had a problem with Kansas Bear defacing French history articles in the past also. The only two I've had a problem with on this website here.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear is the top contributor to this article. He/she has written everything there is to read here about the subject. To accuse Kansas Bear of "defacing" is therefore rather discourteous. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Hi! I'm here to give a third opinion, if you still require one. JLavigne508 and Surtsicna, do you believe that Kansas Bear's opinion was enough to unstick the dispute, or should I give a formal third opinion? Sennecaster (What now?) 12:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

All opinions are welcome, of course! Though to be fair, yours would be fourth :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into peoples edit history and nature but considering Kansas Bear removed the paternal ancestor diagram for this page he would not be a neutral third opinion so yes Sennecaster please do.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad I asked you both; technically, this is not a third opinion since Kansas Bear joined in as well, but I am happy to provide one anyways. This is possibly dipping into civility issues soon and almost certainly edit warring, so before I give an opinion and attempt to mediate in case this does not turn out smoothly, a friendly reminder to keep it focused on the content alone and not the actions or beliefs of the editor.

I am having trouble understanding what is being debated and I do not have the time right now to read the Template talk:Ahnentafel arguments since those are extremely long. From what I understand, this is arguing for the inclusion or exclusion of a family tree. Can you both please briefly summarize your views and arguments for inclusion/exclusion without mentioning the actions/beliefs of other editors? Sennecaster (What now?) 16:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article should not contain a chart that names people who are not named in the article. The article should not contain the sort of genealogy chart that is not found in academic biographies and reference works. The article should not contain anything just because some other articles contain something similar. General family genealogies belong in general family articles. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That was the original question correct Sennecaster. However it has just recently come to my attention that the user has deleted dozens if not hundreds of other ancestry trees on pages of European Royals in recent weeks and this matter has been reported to admin. I am not making any more comments in this discussion.--JLavigne508 (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

What is problematic here is not that I made edits in accordance with consensus reached after a long discussion but that you raising alarm while confessedly refusing to read that discussion. You are consciously and deliberately wasting the time of so many editors. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to mention WP:NOTGENEALOGY, but looks like we are done here! Thank you for your partipation, Sennecaster! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed List for Family Trees

As stated I would not make any more statements carried over from the last discussion as I was not aware of the wider range of edits that had been done at the time. I am sure many people on here could explain many of the policies on here to me and have been here longer than me (I came over from another language's Wiki several years ago). I am just one out of 60,000 or so people that is currently active on here trying to maintain a neutral and best as possible reference source for free online. Concerning the state of ancestry trees for articles mainly from this period, I was not aware that such a discrepancy existed between these family trees for Royal articles. Again, it does not matter what my opinion or any other opinion on this matter is, but concerning any relevance or change in article composition here, because these are basic conventional norms in Western scholarship the relevance is not up for debate on this website, and as for changing the composition of the articles, this would have to be done uniform across the board, otherwise that falls under bias choosing which ones get to stay or not, and again is against policy. There are many alternative web sites if people have alternative views on things or how they like to view articles (which by now is more common online and in general society anyway). Concerning the sourcing, like most contributors I was not aware of specific sourcing for these templates as they had been on for so long and mostly not touched. I agree that this website should have sources as much as reasonably possible, and even if I didn't it wouldn't matter because again that is the policy the same as for the issues previously stated. I was not aware that so many Royal family trees were left up here that were not properly sourced while others were given much more attention. I find this very disturbing that such a large section was completely ignored, and think it was useful to point this out.

I would propose that someone else make a suggestion if not here but somewhere, and that a list should be made of as many of the ancestry trees (that are known) as possible that need to properly sourced (either a chart up top or individually with each box as I understand it, please correct me if I am wrong), and agree that no trees will be put back up unless properly sourced, and if anyone does so unaware of this, that they may be made aware of this and the tree may stay down until sourced. I will try to reference these as much as I can and get them up (it is often hard to find family tree charts in formal works which may have been part of the reason for the lack of sourcing, IDK), but with a list more people could contribute and obviously it would be much more faster and efficient.--JLavigne508 (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A policy much discussed at Template talk:Ahnentafel (which I, again, urge you to read so as to avoid stating what has already been stated) is WP:PROPORTION. Namely, articles should not contain what is not found in reliable sources specializing in the subject. Also stated and demonstrated at Template talk:Ahnentafel is that ahnentafeln are not what you call "basic conventional norms in Western scholarship". They do not appear in modern academic biographies or reference works. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

And again, I have read the page, and again, the reasons continually being cited for the removal of the trees are relevance, importance, and sourcing of the trees, nothing else. If you were to apply these edits for other reasons, you haven't done so, if you were to change the composition of the articles citing any reason whatsoever (which you have not), they would have to be done uniformly, otherwise it is bias (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing).--JLavigne508 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevance, importance, and sourcing are all valid reasons for adding and removing content. It is not possible (or necessary) to edit thousands of articles at once. There is no bias in editing some articles before others; suggesting otherwise is ludicrous. Surtsicna (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You yourself are going through on a case by case basis autocratically deleting family trees and keeping others all based on some falsely perceived "consensus." Not one other person has taken part. That is the very definition of bias (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing).

Then report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Apparently one administrator telling you to stop was not enough. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop and leave this article alone for the time being. Take a break for a week, come back, start an RfC or something, take the time to refocus this on the content itself. For now, leave it out since it is the current revision, and I would gain true consensus from multiple editors, probably through an RfC, to either remove uniformly or keep them all. Sennecaster (What now?) 22:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with being uniform about anything vis-à-vis thousands of articles and would not suggest or take part in a discussion that offers only black or white solutions. No RfC could enforce or forbid the use of a template across thousands of articles. Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)