Talk:Anthony Bailey (PR advisor)

Lady Bailey

There seems to be an edit war going on here with respect to the appropriate title usage for Sir Anthony Bailey's wife. Can everyone stop please and use the talk page to discuss the correct form. Thank you. Oinky (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Sir" from title

Moved article from Sir Anthony Bailey to Anthony Bailey (campaigner) per WP:OBE. Wikipedia does not generally preface article titles with "Sir"; while there are exceptions, a mere OBE isn't enough. John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What about the info box one? Is that special, and is the "his Excellency" kosher? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Which of the abbrevations of orders ought to be included in the leading section, and on what grounds, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace have ordered Bailey "to stop giving impression of being a British knight".

Further confirmation to the above https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2547848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.26.78 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The subject of the article has been stripped of the style of Sir and more, notably by 78.145.26.78 (talk · contribs), in explicit reference ot this source: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2547848 ("Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom."). The user seem to imply that there is a consensus that what applies in the United Kingdom in that regard should apply in the article. When did that consensus form, please? Furthermore, what about the Eminence style? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new 2nd para in respect of UK press coverage. In the circumstances, and with Bailey being British, it is misleading to have the first para begin with "Sir", as our users are likely to reasonably infer that he has a British knighthood, which is not the case. So, I will alter that accordingly. If anyone would like to reinstate, please seek consensus here first, or "Sir" will be removed again. Edwardx (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. The London Gazette of 1 June 2016 reported from Buckingham Palace " Notice is hereby given that, in line with the long-established convention concerning foreign titles, British nationals who have been awarded an honour by another country may not use any associated title, that the award might bestow, in the United Kingdom. Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom." (see here). I am removing 'Sir' from the lead and will report any reinstatement to WP administrators.--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. Bailey is not an Antiguan national, as confirmed by the government of that country. (http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Another-Caribbean-diplomatic-passport-raises-questions-30653.html) Therefore, his knighthood is a purely honorary one entirely, as is his Grenadan one. As a result, I suggest the section of page called "Titles" is also modified to fit this. Further, Her Majesty's Passport Office in the UK are reissuing Bailey's passport without his title. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625651/Baroness-Scotland-bought-Commonwealth-job-utterly-corrupt-process.html) CaribbeanTruth (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support If the London Gazette is not a reliable source in this case then I don't know what is.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new 2nd para in respect of UK press coverage. In the circumstances, and with Bailey being British, it is misleading to have the first para begin with "Sir", as our users are likely to reasonably infer that he has a British knighthood, which is not the case. So, I will alter that accordingly. If anyone would like to reinstate, please seek consensus here first, or "Sir" will be removed again. Edwardx (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. The London Gazette of 1 June 2016 reported from Buckingham Palace " Notice is hereby given that, in line with the long-established convention concerning foreign titles, British nationals who have been awarded an honour by another country may not use any associated title, that the award might bestow, in the United Kingdom. Only those British nationals, including dual nationals, awarded a British Knighthood or appointed to a British Order of Chivalry as a Dame, may use the title ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ in the United Kingdom." (see here). I am removing 'Sir' from the lead and will report any reinstatement to WP administrators.--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of 'Sir', which is misleading. Bailey is not an Antiguan national, as confirmed by the government of that country. (http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Another-Caribbean-diplomatic-passport-raises-questions-30653.html) Therefore, his knighthood is a purely honorary one entirely, as is his Grenadan one. As a result, I suggest the section of page called "Titles" is also modified to fit this. Further, Her Majesty's Passport Office in the UK are reissuing Bailey's passport without his title. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625651/Baroness-Scotland-bought-Commonwealth-job-utterly-corrupt-process.html) CaribbeanTruth (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support If the London Gazette is not a reliable source in this case then I don't know what is.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose There is no question that the subjects knighthood is legitimate and correctly bestowed. As Bailey is a national of several nations it is perfectly correct to include the title 'Sir' on the page and to use the relevant post nominals to distinguish from a UK or for that matter any other realm kngithhoods but to include a reference to that fact that in the UK such use of title is not formally allowed. I am also concerned thatlinks I have made to published letters from the Queens office at Buckingham Palace confirming the subjects various awards are not being accepted as proof of the award when surely they should be much like the London Gazette considered of primarly source. I would propose that these be reinstated as surely what applies in the United Kingdom now only has part relevance to the global reach of the article. It is also important to note from various published sources that the Mail on Sunday articles are subject to legal action and I would have throught that wikipedia should not until the matter is resolved be guided by the contested articles. For the record I am not Anthony Bailey or have even met him! [[User:Cultre759|Culture759Culture759 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)]

Indeed. I notice also that still noone is able to explain why presentation of such titles on the English-medium Wikipedia articles ought to follow national rules applied in the United Kingdom? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Because he is a British citizen primarily and is based in the United Kingdom. He is not an Antiguan national, and as an Irish citizen the Constitution and government does not recognise any titles. The government of Ireland merely gives permission for awards to be accepted, but do not allow it in things such as identity documents or government certificates. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Support as per https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2547848 Kiltpin (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Distinctions

A large number of distinctions claimed in the article are without appropriate citations according to WP:LIVE and have been flagged as such. I propose to delete those that re not appropriately substantiated by the end of June 2016.--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Too much of the content of this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Edwardx (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support I'm also worried about the re-emergence of post nominals in the intro which were previously removed. Every day it seems a new one reappears. Also, it's quite clear alot of the sources for the content is from Bailey's own website, one citation even led to an admin login for his site. All those edits were made by Culture759, who I'm convinced is Bailey or someone on his behalf. The photo is also listed as Culture's "personal work." Could someone look into that, or prevent them from editing this page? CaribbeanTruth (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support On reviewing this article, it's difficult to see much genuine notability here. But there is some, so I don't suggest deletion as the answer. It does appear that someone has been filling the page with incestuous trivialities. All these third-rate titles can go, except insofar as they have become the subject of third-party comment. The unreferenced stuff all needs to go. That won't leave much of the current article. Hunc (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Object National Honours are hardly third-rate titles. I sourced from the web confirmation letters signed by the queen's office at buckingham palace and this can hardly be considered unsourced even if the letters are downloadable from the subjects website. I notice a good deal of recent commentary on the above article some of which is being made by a number of one time wikipedia users. Accordingly to caribbean media The Mail on Sunday artciles are subject to legal action and I believe all contributors need to be careful when editing this article. I am not the subject of the article, have not met him, but interested in the subject. Culture759 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Culture759, please read WP:THREAT and guard your language when posting. "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Users who do so are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding." Editors are perfectly entitled to edit this article according to WP standards. The Buckingham Palace letters you refer to, being available only from Bailey's own site, are not acceptable as WP sources. Such sources should be secondary (i.e. accessibly referred to by reliable non-connected parties). See WP:V and WP:SPS. By the way, if you are indeed nothing to do with Mr. Bailey, I should be fascinated to learn how you got access to the letters from Buckingham Palace which you uploaded as would-be citations from Bailey's site, (see here), but which appear to be only available to that site's administrators (as evidenced by the internet address beginning http://www.anthonybailey.org/wp-login.php)......--Smerus (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Culture759 if you have indeed never met him, how did you take the photo of him on the subject's page that you list as your own work? (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthonybaileyspeaker1.jpg) CaribbeanTruth (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The user has, as far as I can see, not mentioned any legal actions against Wikipedia, but rather legitimately proposed the controversial nature of the main publication used as source for the recent editing of this article. Also, in any case, according to the rules on Wikipedia: on this talk page, please consider keeping the subject of this discussion to the article in question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Object per Culture759. I totally agree with him! Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed several inadequately-supported mentions of various awards. Some have been, correctly, put back with better references, thanks. However, it seems that we are in some cases relying on scans of official letters available only on the subject's own website. I suggest, as do others above, that this is not sufficient. These awards should again be deleted until truly independent verification can be produced. And, while I assume that the OBE is also genuine, it also needs an appropriate source. The Catholic Herald article really isn't sufficient - it would have been normal for the journalist to have simply taken the subject's word for it. These things are officially gazetted - we need to show exactly where. Hunc (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Hunc - if we can't find independent verifications, then awards should not be listed. WP:BLP is clear on this, the essential elements are No Original Research and Verifiability.--Smerus (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Revival of the Order

@Hunc: Your source says that a delegation of the order was revived. Not that the order itself was. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the sentence in the source really is confusingly written: "All three men who were knighted were, along with Baroness Scotland, part of a delegation from an ancient Catholic order, The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, which was revived ten years ago by Bailey, who also styles himself ‘His Excellency’." Nevertheless, the order was revived. Not the delegation. Hunc (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any other credible source on that statement other than Daily Mail? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A source is a source. Do you have third-party source which says otherwise? If so, you can add to the article accordingly. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not justification for removal.--Smerus (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review the contued discussion on "revival" further down the page. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability questionable

Anthony Bailey is a PR consultant in England, in the UK (although he would like to claim that either he doesn't actually live in the UK either at all, or at least for UK tax purposes he is not actually "domiciled"), behind the scenes. The article and others associated articles ("Lady Bailey" and the Constantinian Order) are probably all written by himself (as a PR man, whilst pretending they were edited by someone else when it was in fact not the case—that is after all what a PR man is supposed to do, even if it is unethical!) He hasn't really come into notability until about two articles written about him, one on the Mail on Sunday (also reproduced on the Daily Mail Online) on the 28th. May 2016, and one on the "Private Eye" magazine (the Notice on the London [Government] Gazette does not even mention him by name), and even then it probably falls under WP:1E. All the affected articles should really be deleted, and if Bailey is still considered important enough, then an article should be resurrected, but his notability only really started on May 28, and not before. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, there are plenty of sources other than the ones you mentioned. Furthermore, the contents of the article speak for themselves in terms of notability. If you cannot weight that in, I suppose visiting more associated articles would do, in order to get a more clear picture of the context. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things are now clear. First, this article has enough reliable sources to establish at least a limited degree of notability. That does include the controversy over the listing of shiny honorific sticky badges, but we may legitimately debate whether it's worth keeping the list of sticky badges themselves, so lovingly inserted by Culture759. Second, Culture759 clearly has a serious conflict of interest in this article and others. Indeed, looking at certain related articles, starting with his wife and the Constantinian Order, I strongly suspect a small sockfarm at work.

I'd like to suggest that the sticky badges can be kept, where reliable sources are given (and no, your own website doesn't count for this purpose. But that of the Republic of Vulgaria probably does, for a Vulgarian award.) This on the grounds that an encyclopedic article on a narcissist can reasonably include evidence of narcissism.

I hope that Culture759 and any other editors closely related to the subject of this article will read, carefully consider, and act upon the guidelines on conflict of interest, before making any more contributions. Hunc (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask us to consider our posts based on the Wikipedia rules sourrounding articles on living people. I suppose we are here discussing how to make the article better, and that is well enough a subject for a talk page on Wikipedia, to the best of my understanding of its principles. As for distinctions on biographical articles, I have seen no reference to changed consensus in that regard differing from the existing one - which non-controversely does include them. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources and notability

Thanks to Smerus for recent edits / additions. One point, the identity and connections of his wife, relies on the site of a amateur enthusiast, Miroslav Marek. Another point, his son's name , relies on a paid notice in the Irish Times. I would suggest that both of these may well be true, but the amateur website isn't reliable for our purposes, and a paid notice isn't reliable and doesn't indicate notability. I suggest that these points should go or be supported by genuinely reliable third-party comment. Hunc (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally am prepared to WP:AGF in these particular instances. The inclusion of this imformation was supported by two other independent editors in the relevant AFD discussion concerning Mrs. Bailey .If the subject of this article is indeed WP:NOTABLE (and I leave it to others to consider that issue) then this information is relevant--Smerus (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's leave it unless anyone else has an opinion. Hunc (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Name of the page

The designation "campaigner" does not really encapsulate the subject's main activity. In fact it seems to be a peacock word. Reliable sources make clear that he is a public relations practitioner and unless anyone can come up with some better idea, I propose to rename the page to "Anthony Bailey (public relations practitioner)". I'll leave this a bit to allow comments. Hunc (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support this; it is after all his profession, and his actions in this respect correspond with the WP article Public relations. The campaigning he undertakes is not clearly defined in the sources, nor is it his full-time activity. I just wonder if the proposed title is not too clunky - cf in WP John Underwood (PR adviser) which seems a bit neater.--Smerus (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Anthony Bailey (PR adviser) seems good. Hunc (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that the title should be changed. "Anthony Bailey (PR advisor)" would be even better. A quick Google search for PR adviser gets 1.2 million, but PR advisor gets 40.1 million. Edwardx (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As no one objected, I have been bold and moved the article. Edwardx (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George - revival?

"In the 1990s, Bailey revived the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George." - this is patently untrue and nonsense. 1- The Order was functioning quite happily without him and did not need reviving, 2- Only the Pope can revive the Order (if it goes into abeyance in the first place). I tried to correct this to 'received' instead of revived, but was reverted as The Daily Mail says he revived it. I believe that the DM report is bad copy editing and grammar and that is how the misunderstanding occurred. Could we please have a few more eyes on this and get a consensus to changing it. Kiltpin (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After a little more research - thanks to the contributors on the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George - you seem to be half right. I suspect that Bailey may have been involved in the revival, not so much of the Order, but of the claims of another branch of the family that "owns" the Order to the titles and whatnot. He, and they, appear to have set up their own organization in competition with the longstanding one. As there is no external authority over the Order, or for that matter over the princely titles - they're not recognized or regulated by the Pope or by anyone else - nobody is in a position to tell him or his personal "prince" to stop it. Now, that's my interpretation, but the source definitely says "revived". I doubt it's an editing error, I presume this goes back to a claim by someone associated with this "revival", but we are forbidden here from indulging in this sort of original research. I'd be pleased if you could find a reliable source that tells us more accurately what's going on. For the moment we should stick with what we've got. Hunc (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

How is anybody supposed to find reliable sources for an event that never happened? I can't prove a negative, can you? Kiltpin (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The current state of this article is incorrect. Wikipedia is full of recipents of this order well before the subject of the article supposedly "revived" the order. I have tried to point this out a couple of times by attempting to change the sentence or fill in a template asking for a better sourcing, but one or more editors keep hanging on to this factoid. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As I explain in the next section, "revival" is clearly, er, something of a gloss, but it's what our source (and, I suspect, someone associated with the subject of the article) has been presenting. Feel free to find better sourcing. I'd love to see it. (This also applies to anyone associated with the subject of the article - check the guidelines on conflict of interest, but if you want to present a version of events, it would be perfectly appropriate to do so on this talk page. If you can provide reliable third-party sources, we may well be able to include it in the article. You may feel that we're out to get you, but truly we're not. We are here to present a neutral article according to Wikipedia guidelines.) Hunc (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What one available sourced says according to one biographical article should not override what hundreds or thousands of other biographical articles and sources implicate - namely that this order existed, operated and was distributed en masse well before the article's subject came on the scene. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, what form of words would you suggest? Rather than "revived", what about "was instrumental in setting up the Delegation for Great Britain and Ireland of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, under Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro and in competition with the longstanding version of that order under Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria." Hunc (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Taking the Daily Mail as Gospel truth should be avoided by Wikipedians!

A quick study of the history of Bailey's UK and Irish Delegation (www.constantinian.org.uk) shows a long line of previous delegates and vice delegates and members in both countries going back over 200 years. Its planly wrong to suggest he revived the order as it is a global body headquartered in Italy and whose decorations are recognised by numerous foreign states and first and formost the Italian Republic which is relevant here as it is a order which was headquartered there and given by the former neopolitan royal family whilst in power and in exile.

I feel very uncomfortable about the taking anything the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday says as gospel truth. Its a well known taboid that runs these types of stories and I think that fact that no other UK newspaper has carried this story speaks for itself. We should all be a bit cauious as this is a newspaper that is famous for twisting the truth. Interesting to see that the paper already had to issue an correction on one of the stories stating that Bailey had doctored a statement from British PM Cameron which the paper has confirmed was untrue. All the other stories are also subject to a legal complains too so we should be careful and follow thwe rules.

There are also a number of edits made by wikipedians who are clearly only interested in this story and whilst their contributions should be noted they should also be studied carefully and check they follow the rules. Some certainly are not and seem like mud racking and character attack which given the nature of the real focus of some of the stories being Baroness Scotland are clearly politically inspired. 193.24.32.51 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with 193.24.32.51. The revival nonsense is just that - nonsense. It is this kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. What was obviously meant was that he received the Order, not he revived the Order. They make a typo and we look like fools. Kiltpin (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Order isn't a thing to be "received", though its baubles may be. He seems to have set up a branch of the Order substantially under his own control, on the authority of a dubious claimant to a "princedom" which has long since lost external validation. See Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George and some of the (unfortunately even less reliable than the Daily Mail) links therein. I speculate that he may have presented this to the Daily Mail or their source as "reviving" the order, but we'd need better sources to put it into the article. Your speculation seems to lack any sources and doesn't make sense. Hunc (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it lacks sources - you can't prove a negative. "doesn't make sense", are you truly not understanding? Well, we will just have to wait. It will not be long before this whole sorry farrago comes crashing down. Kiltpin (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have never before seen a Wikipedia article where one source gives such privilege of describing something perifery to the article's subject as in this case, provided the source is incorrect given available sources throughout the rest of Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick study of the history section of the UK delegation website shows that Bailey wasnt even a member of the Order in the 1990s let alone able to revive a Order which is global and which has had according to the history of the Order in Britain and Ireland has had members since 1700s. Suggest this reference is amended or removed. 87.103.14.40 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"Revived" is what the source says... it does seem to be a euphemism for setting up a new and separate version of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George under the "authority" of an alternative claimant to an extinct princedom. Advice would be welcome: does Bailey's rejection by the pre-existing version of the Order suffice to let us say that he has set up his own organization,rather than "revive" anything? Hunc (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not an euphenism - for anything. Are you seriously suggesting that anybody can reject a pre-existing version of an order (that they are not a member of) and then set up their own organization (with the same name)? If that is the case, I think I will set up another Order of the Garter - I always did like the hats! Now that you agree that "revive" does not mean what you first thought it meant, I agree wholeheartedly with 87.103.14.40 "Suggest this reference is amended or removed." Personally, I would prefer, removed. Kiltpin (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's try again. If you were to set up your own version of the Order of the Garter you'd get some very serious people calling on you to tell you that you really can't do that. And if you persist, there'd be people in uniforms telling you the same thing, and then someone in a wig, and then more people with big bunches of keys telling you the same thing only more so. However, the title of "prince of Ruritania" is not supported or regulated by any actual secular power; if it had ever existed, it would be a sort of zombie title and so would its orders of nobility and whatnot. In other words, if you find a descendant of the old princely house of, say, Ruritania, and you find that he's a claimant to the princedom, there's nothing at all to stop you working with him to set up another branch of every Order of nobility ever supported by the Princes of Ruritania, even if there's another claimant and even if he's already organized his own Orders. Nobody with the power to stop you actually cares enough to do so.

I really do recommend studying the page on the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. And the pages of the version of the Order associated with Andrew Bailey, under Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro, and of the main competing claimants under Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria. I don't feel the need to disentangle their various claims to castles in the air, or their necrotic histories, nor do I wish to disparage whatever good works they may do, but it is very clear that there are at least two versions of the Order, and the subject of this article is up to his chins in one of them. Now, we are using the word "revive", per a source which I suspect goes back to Bailey himself, to describe his involvement with one branch. I have yet to find a reliable source that says explicitly what I think happened, namely that Bailey worked with, or on, Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro, to set up a competing version of the Order in the 1990s. But until we have a more illuminating reliable source, or consensus that some form of words such as "set up a competing version of the Order" is reasonable, we will do well to stick with "revive". I hope this makes things a little clearer. Hunc (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

At this diff [1] I have, I hope, come up with a text that we can all agree with. Thanks for the positive feedback so far. Hunc (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, better. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 12:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

There appears on this page a lot of single interest posts by CaribbeanTruth (talk) who may well have a conflict of interest. There appears little balance to his edits and these should be treated with caution. Hie should Use this page to talk through proposed changes rather than what appears the railroading of his views which affect the balance of the article and which don't seem to have community consensus . In what relates to 1995 allegations this surely is not relevant and we should follow the rules of Wikipedia in this regard which were clear enough.85.247.218.174 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to 85.247.218.174. You wouldn't, by any chance, be connected with Anthony Bailey? I invite you to review our policy on conflict of interest and make any declarations that may be required. If you do wish to suggest any substantive changes to the article, please remember to tell us which specific Wikipedia rule you may have in mind. Hunc (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of other fellow Wikipedians. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP address geolocates to Sintra, Portugal, where according to Private Eye the subject of this article has a house and from where other edits to this article have been made. (The Private Eye report is what attracted me, and, I guess, certain other editors, to this article.) This IP's contributions appear to display a certain focusing of interest.

I repeat my call for the IP to review our policy on conflict of interest and make any declarations that may be required. I also repeat my call to provide on this talk page any further information that may actually be useful to this article. Hunc (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In either case, the user is hardly violating Wikipedia. Please feel free to welcome new users who wish to improve its articles. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Orders again

I have reinstated at this edit [2] some details about the various versions of the Constantinian Order, which clarify the points discussed at length above. Their absence can only cause renewed confusion. I ask the IPs from Mexico City, Israel, and Sintra - or any other associates of the subject of the article - to refrain from removing important and referenced points. I also remind all editors of Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. Hunc (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday

This article is sourcing in many cases the Mail on Sunday a well known tabloid newspaper which is not considered by editors to be a reliable source. For reasons of WP. BLPSTYLE, WP. NOT RELIABLE and WP. ALIVE and NPOV, I feel this article needs to be reviewed and maybe updated and amended accordingly 163.166.150.56 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday is legally and editorially a separate company to the MailOnline and the Daily Mail, the new policy on unreliable sources does clearly not apply CaribbeanTruth (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The references are directed at MailonLine and Wikipedia is clear on this. I agree with (talk) and suggest that alternative sources are found or the article should be amended by editors accordingly or the references removed. I too find no reference to the divorce of the couple and I believe this should be removed until something else is found. Are such records not public? Can anyone advise?

It seems CaribbeanTruth and have a very close interest in or to the subject and appears and in two cases seem to be single issue interest editors. Editors need to be aware of this and from what I see there is a lack of objectivity in some of the entries and a significant sourcing to Mail OnLine and far to much unnecessary clutter in the paragraphs which is just not appropriate for the subject himself. I am proposing that 1. we remove all references to the Mail on Line which cannot be sourced elsewhere, remove with immediate effect the references to the divorce and to reduce the overkill paragraphs on the Constantinian Order or the balance sheets of little known companies. My feeling too is to bring greater neutrality to the article.163.166.150.56 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing to remove most of the notable points about this individual. I appreciate that the subject would probably like a lot of them removed - the article is significantly different to its state when he was a main contributor - but we are here to provide a neutral account of what's been said about him, not necessarily just the image that he may wish to present. Hunc (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Painting and Patronage

I have amended the article to remove the references that this initiative or cultural programme is dissolved. The website clearly shows its part of the Saudi Royal Court and whilst in the UK its activities have concluded the initiative is clearly still active with high profile royal as its head. 163.166.150.56 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

So it would seem from the organization's own website. However, the UK company of the same name has been dissolved. In view of the disagreement over this point, I've included both as fact in the article. I hope that everyone is happy with that solution. If anything is to be deleted I'd suggest that we don't really need to make any comment either on the non-notable UK company or on its dissolution. But the programme itself probably does achieve low-grade notability. Hunc (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have again added to the article the fact that the UK company Painting and Patronage has been dissolved. This leaves us with a paragraph here on the organization, and on re-examining the paragraph and the page painting and Patronage I am doubtful whether the organization itself actually achieves notability. It reads to me like a puff piece from a PR company, with "references" to unreliable or trivial sources. What would others say to the possibility of removing this paragraph, and considering the page painting and Patronage for deletion? Hunc (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree to both of these suggestions CaribbeanTruth (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Further CoI edits

At this edit we have another edit which seems to be made by the subject of the article or someone very close to him. Not only physically close - it geolocates to near his holiday home in Portugal - but it removes specifically the items that the subject might most wish to see removed, in close harmony with other probable CoI edits, see discussion above. I have reverted it, taking the opportunity to do a tiny bit of tidying. To the problematic editor(s), please bear in mind that CoI editing may not be obvious to you, but it will be to un-involved editors. Hunc (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

400,000 people live in Sintra. My proposed Amendments are valid and in line with Wikipedia and General Ecyclopedia requirements. It would seem you are the one with some relationship with the subject looking at the history of your many amendments and I am tiding up an article to make it clear and relevant. What is the evidence I am close to the subject? I have none unlike you. So please cease your unhelpful comments and understand what Wikipedia is and what it wishes to uphold namely the integrity of Wikipedia.. Hunc (talk) 2001:8A0:7BCD:A201:41EE:7C54:DDAB:C168 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the "anon" IP meant to ping you, @Hunc:, rather than linking to your userpage. Anon IP, your edits would seem to indicate a possible CoI and removal of referenced material is vandalism. Hunc's edits are fully in accordance with WP policies. In addition, per BLP, unreferenced material may be removed. There is nothing in the article to indicate that subject is Irish, so that will be deleted. Category:Irish Roman Catholics - as with all BLPs - should not be added unless the subject is notable because of their membership of that religion. See WP:BLPCAT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the amount of CoI editing on this page I suggest it's time to limit editing to autoconfirmed accounts. Does anyone think it's not a good idea to take this to WP:ANI? Hunc (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I object to your proposal. It is your edits that are being questioned here and corrected to keep in line with Wikipedia rules. 2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no COL . There are plenty of online sources referring to Baileys Irish nationality. You might wish to view them. As to my amendments to the article they are in relation to maintaining Wikipedia's guidelines in terms of neutrality of articles and that this is a living person and that Wikipedia should not be using discredited sourcing such as the mail gossip newspapers. Therefore i have attempted to maintain the encyclopaedic nature of the site. A lot is mere gossip and is not relevant on a site such as this. Additionally the continued removal to the subjects Antiguan diplomatic role and his Antiguan Knighthood is hardly vandalism but rather includes in the article an significant aspect to the subject which has been widely reported on. The references to the disputed constantinian order are well documented and in the same way that they are not mentioned on the Wikipedia pages associated with the other leading figures of this organisation they should be removed and edited to follow with Wikipedia rules but with the necessary links made to the dispute if needed. So please can you cease vandalising the article and my amendments and either outline specifically your concerns about each line of the various texts edited or removed2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

@Hunc:, agreed, semi-protection at least is warranted. Please raise on AN/I. Anon IP, you can't claim you are upholding WP policies (without even naming the policies in question!) while simultaneously removing referenced material (which, on WP, is considered vandalism and which can be reverted on sight). You're also inserting unsourced material! Hunc, looking more closely at this article, it appears somewhat bizarre - "references" include scanned letters uploaded to a Wordpress site, for example. Could use a good overhaul, I think. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. The changes are clear. What are the unsourced materials you refer too. The edited texts are in line with wikipedia rules. This is a in Encyclopaedia not a gossip newspaper Wonderground (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Passing admins should note that the only edit Wonderground has made is this comment. Wonderground, are you the account formerly known as IP 2001:8A0:7BDD:etc?

While several of my edits were reverted recently by yet another anon IP, some including edit summaries such as "unexplained removal", all of my edits were indeed explained and are in line with WP policy.

• We don't indiscriminately include flags for all of the reasons listed in WP:FLAGCRUFT.
• We don't use self-published sources (and paying for a notice in a newspaper is effectively self-publishing). I am inclined to think scans of letters published on Wordpress would likely also fail WP:RS
• Austria is a republic. It does not have princesses. If it did have a princess, she would no doubt merit her own article. WP:NCNOB refers to article titles, not how people are addressed within articles, and contains nothing that would apply, except perhaps "For claimants to titles which have been suppressed, as with the dukes of Bavaria, follow the general article titling policy." which would mean that if Marie-Therese von Hohenberg is notable enough to merit her own article, it would reside at Marie-Therese von Hohenberg and not Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg. (Oh, look... that's interesting!)
• You do not own this page - it will be edited by others, in accordance with WP policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your aggressive stance on this is not appropriate especially to a newcomer. The amendments I have made are relevant and in keeping with the rules that I have read. This is an encyclopaedic resource and not the pages of a gossip magazine. The mail is already an unreliable source and unless they can be sourced elsewhere they should be removed is what I have read. Surely you can see that from what was removed that follows this. Whilst austria is indeed a republic the use of titles by members of former dynastic families is already well documented. Just look at the endless pages on other non reigning royal or noble Families. You protest too much and either you need to justify why my edits cannot stand or leave them alone and allow them to Be considered by other wilikepdians on this page before vandalising the article which is I believe clearer and sharper and more in tune with what Wikipedia should be and thrives to be. Wonderground (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Bit worried about these edits on the page today from DE Mophon, all very clearly angled towards the subject and removing sections for no particular reason and without any consensus or sources to replace it. I've reverted most of them until there is consensus on here. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material is vandalism - thank you for reverting. DE Mophon clearly doesn't have consensus to remove that material. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Distinctions section

So is it just me, or does the "Distinctions" section seem like a puff piece and somewhat overblown? I've found problems with a couple just with a casual look over the list, and it seems downright odd that someone who is not by any means a household name would appear, on the face of it, to have approximately three times more honours than Prince William, Duke of Cambridge? How many of these awards are actually significant?

Should the list be culled to just those that are significant enough to merit their own articles? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that sounds reasonable. Other types of bios have similar requirements - actors don't get every minor acting award included, for instance. Many orders have different ranks, and it may very well be the case that a lower rank of an otherwise notable order/award is not very significant. I, too, found three questionable entries (out of the three "distinctions" I spot-checked...) --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Hunc (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. Edwardx (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to understand why all those distinctions are WP:DUE at all. The OBE and the catholic knighthood perhaps, but the rest, plus the ream already removed, would seem to be over egging the pudding. The reciprocal awards collected by Bailey at his Constantinian Club would seem to be undue and used purely for social climbing. Orders from Syria should have been turned down imho, and frankly, I've done more for Moroccan/British relations than Ant, and though I haven't met the king, I was once held up in a traffic jam in Agdal caused by him. We should seriously look at this with a view to getting rid of the cruft. (The ref used to support the 'fact' that Mrs Bailey is the granddaughter of an Austrian prince (Franz-Ferdinand) is not WP:RS and we ought to remove those claims.) -Roxy the dog. bark 10:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have struck rubbish that Roxy posted above, as it is factually correct, the source is not RS, but this is trivially verifiable, and covered by other sources cited. We love the Munster Gazette. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, looking over the list, I'd propose:

Adding a subhead for "reciprocal awards", explaining that this is when people give each other awards in the knowledge they're also receiving one, and moving the "Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Nation" and "Grand Officer of the Order of San Carlos" to there; Removing the following:

• First Class Grade of the Order of the Madara Horseman - doesn't merit its own article;
• Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary - fifth of six ranks;
• First Class Grade of the Order of the Montenegrin Flag - doesn't merit its own article;
• Knight Commander of the Royal Order of Al-Alaoui / Ouissam Alaouite to Commander of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite - not supported by the references supplied (and the rank of "Knight Commander" doesn't appear to exist);
• Grand Officer of the Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero - third of four ranks;
• Knight Commander with Star of the Order of Infante Dom Henrique - reference is a search engine. Searching for Bailey does give an Anthony Bailey result, with a rank of Commander. No mention of KC or Stars. Commander is third of five ranks;
• 1st Class of the Syrian Order of Outstanding Merit - doesn't merit its own article;
• (While "Officer of the OBE" is 4th of 5 ranks, I'd leave it as being of some limited relevance on the English-language Wikipedia.)
• Remove all of the Dynastic orders - an award by a private family, really?
• Mother Teresa Humanitarian Presidential Medal - doesn't merit its own article;
• Medal of The President of the Slovak Republic - doesn't mertit its own article.

Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

After Roxy the dog's comment, I'd have no objection to removing the "reciprocal" awards, either. They do seem quite minor and yes, social climbing... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. Long overdue. Hunc (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead. --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Dynastic awards deserve no mention at all, as they have no state backing of any kind and would be equivalent to something from a cereal packet. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Marital Status

A few months ago somebody tried to report on this page that the Baileys were no longer married, using The Daily Fail as a source. The Fail source only said that Mrs Bailey had filed for divorce, and thus didn't support the claim, and I believe it was removed by me, because the Fail is an unreliable source anyway. Are there any RS surrounding this issue? Perhaps one of our Portuguese WP:SPAs could help us? -Roxy the dog. bark 10:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, The source came from the Mail on Sunday, not the Daily Mail. They're totally separate newspapers with different staff and editors, no known ruling on their unreliability as a source. The article said they cited records from the Family Court, which would seem pretty reasonable. Nothing wrong with saying, "In X, the Mail on Sunday reported his wife X had filed a petition for divorce in the Central Family Court." CaribbeanTruth (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Both papers are part of the same company, and though editorial staff are different, both present the same website as their home page. For me, they have the same level of reliability as each other. I will therefore not be attempting to bring the article in line with this information. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems unfair. The Times and the Sun are owned by the same people, with different staff in the same building. I don't think the website really makes a difference. Bylines very clearly say either Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday. The fact is, the divorce was heavily reported, and no complaint with the press regulator seems to be made. I'm with you about the Daily Mail, but this is different, especially given the Sunday edition exposed all his drama. Would you object if I added it back in? CaribbeanTruth (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If it was heavily reported, it'll be in reliable sources, not just the Fail, and we do need impeccable sources for something like that. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, you're ascribing the well known problems with the Daily Mail to a totally different newspaper. If we were to discount any investigations done only by the Mail on Sunday then plenty of corrupt politicians would still have their jobs, and Anthony Bailey would still be collecting titles and pretending to be a knight. If the Mail on Sunday had written it inaccurately, and he wasn't getting divorced from his wife, then Bailey could have taken it to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, but he didn't. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

... and this issue raises it's ugly head again. At the moment, our statements with regard to their marital status are totally unsourced, the events having occurred quite some time after the references were written. What I think is needed is a nice WP:RS, or all of that should be removed. Sadly, I think the edits made in good faith around this issue need to be removed, but I have not done so, yet ... -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We probably could rely on something like this from the Mail on Sunday. But we do need an actual reference, not a hypothetical one. The unreferenced stuff needs to go. Hunc (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And I have removed it. I've also reinstated his own descriptions of his occupation - totally reliable for the fact that the claims have been made, and I'd suggest, useful in making this a well-rounded article. Hunc (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd still say "no" per policy to using the Fail as a source for anything. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What even is "Head R. Order of Knighthood"? It's not an "occupation", much less a job... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Good question - and one of the best reasons for keeping the claims in.

The Mail on Sunday is generally regarded as moderately reliable for this sort of thing... Hunc (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

If I can find a quote calling him a "pompous brown-noser and social climber", can we include it? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you need a friendly sniff at the idea, I suppose it could be arranged. Probably best to put it up here and let others cock their legs on it first. Hunc (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo

I've always wanted to bring this up, but the new flurry of activity gives me a chance. The photo used on this article definitely violates the Wiki rules on images. It was added by 'Culture759' who elsewhere on this Talk page has said he's never met or known the subject of the article. Yet on the photo, it's listed as his own work. For a long time I've suspected Culture759 was another account of the subject himself. Given the photo clearly wasn't taken by that user, I think we should remove it. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Culture759 provides a self-portrait of the subject and then says he's not the subject. Clearly, one statement or the other must be untrue. Personally, I'd be inclined to believe that he is indeed the subject of the article and did indeed supply the picture, and I'd also suggest that it's reasonable for us to accept the picture as useful to the article. I'd keep it. Hunc (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although there is a copyright issue here, as the photo was clearly taken by someone else. I don't mind, but it's just further evidence that Culture759 was a puppet. CaribbeanTruth (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Antigua knighthood rescinded

From an official source, https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2836491 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.222.164 (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Title

Philotam, Marie-Therese von Hohenberg appears to be an Austrian citizen. Austria - being a republic rather than a monarchy - does not have royalty. While she can call herself whatever she wants, much as her husband appears to do, WP does not need to repeat such spurious claims. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Add Portuguese and Slovak awards

I noticed the sudden removal of some sourced references I found online concerning the above article and there was a suggestion that this was some sort of whitewash which I am confused about. I have sourced two government sources concerning Bailey's knighthood from the Portuguese President and the Slovak medal he received. Both are relevant to the subject as he is actively engaged with both countries and neither is related to the controversies concerning Antigua or the given to him in some official exchange with the Order.

I have tried to correct a biased opinion presented as a fact in the wikipedia page. The mentioned opinion is unsubstantiated or is covered in other articles. The references to the Constantinian Order are more appropriate for the pages on the Order rather than Bailey but I leave that for wider community consensus. This is felt also with the references to the Mail on Sunday which Wikipedia has anyway considered it as unreliable as a source here. Again I am sure there are much experienced Wikipedians to deal with this. orelofhampton —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll paraphrase what I just posted on my user talk page in response to your question there: There has been a fairly long-term pattern of disruption to the article with various accounts being created to remove anything that is not directly flattering to Bailey. There is a consensus among experienced editors (with no conflict of interest, which is crucial) that the material belongs; it is well-sourced and neutrally written. If there are some specific details that are not covered in sources, those can perhaps be removed after discussion. As for the awards that you added, both of them were previously mentioned in the article but were removed after a discussion had ended in consensus for their removal, about a year ago. You'll find the discussion a few sections further up on this article talk page. The "whitewashing" comment was in reference to your removing the criticism of Bailey, not the addition of the decorations - I should perhaps have included a comment about addition of material against consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I believe the references to the Portuguese and Slovak awards are relevant to Bailey's new roles - one of which involves my local parish. I don't feel the article is particularly balanced in some areas and seems to be sources principally on tabloid newspapers such as the Mail on Sunday which editors have already decided are unreliable. What are your thoughts on this? I have thought such references should be removed unless sourced from more reliable sources.

There are also numerous references made by other single interest editors which concern me having read them as to how neutral they are having read there comments.. Ultimately and having just become an editor I am attempting for my contributions to be an informed and balanced contribution as I believe Wikipedia wishes. If you can help me I would be appreciate it.

I believe my proposed additions should given serious consideration in what concerns Portugal and Slovakia. I have also studied the latest edition of Who's Who 2017 which is a first rate source of information. Let me know what you think.

In what concerns Antony Bailey's role in the Constantinian Order I believe it should be significantly cut down and instead be placed on the pages of the Constantinian Order which covers the issues associated with this catholic order. Bailey is not the order but an officer in it. OrelofHampton (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)orelofhampton

Thanks. You may note that the references are not to the Daily Mail, but to the Sunday Mail, a different newspaper with different editorial policies, though it shares a website with the Daily Mail. The issue with the Portuguese and Slovak awards isn't sourcing their reality, it is the excessive list of frankly-insignificant awards. Who's Who is in the business of listing these things when the holder wants them listed, so listing is totally appropriate for them. Wikipedia is in the business of providing a brief encyclopedic entry, including notable facts covered in secondary sources. This would include the rescinding of the Antiguan and Grenadian knighthoods, but doesn't include most of the baubles previously listed. There have also been unfavourable comments about the mechanisms used to attain these awards. Guy Stair Sainty, vice-grand chancellor of the long-established Order, is reported as saying "The Order purportedly revived in the UK by Bailey is described on its website as the “Delegation for Great Britain and Ireland”; however, in a follow up email, Guy Stair Sainty, vice-grand chancellor of the Order, said it has no connection with Bailey, his business activities or the order of which he is described as “delegate”. Sainty explained that the Constantinian Order concentrates primarily on its Catholic mission and never “exchanges” its membership with anyone for any reason, since this would be contrary to the statutes and character of the Order as a Catholic, chivalric, confraternal institution.

“Neither are we interested in expensive entertainments nor in constant publicity, which is why we have not issued any public statement until now, when the good name of our Order has repeatedly been the subject of so much critical commentary,” he added.

Sainty went on to note that the grant of awards for “’interfaith’ services or whatever” to the likes of President Assad of Syria and former President Saleh of Yemen and various state officials in other countries, including the Caribbean, has no worth.

“The self-evident conflict of interest between Mr Bailey’s role as a businessman apparently acting on behalf of states for fees, yet exchanging decorations of this controversial Constantinian Order … and then claiming awards in return would appear to be entirely contrary to the spirit of this ancient Catholic institution,” he said."

As for the shenanigans over the Constantinian Delegation, they are arguably the main reason why the existence of this article can be justified at all. Your desire to remove them strongly suggests that you are one of the various editors, closely associated with the subject or actually consubstantial with him, who have repeatedly tried to remove the notable points that do not redound entirely to his credit. To repeat, this is Wikipedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion. Hunc (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to read your comments and in many ways seem unbalanced and certainly not without bias. Having looked into this it is clear that Guy Stair Sainty is not an unbiased and suitable source for comment re the Constantine Order. From all the sources I have read on line he is non other than a clear opponent to Bailey by virtue of his role as head of a rival Constantine order based in Spain. Indeed there are various other sources that show both Bailey and Sainty being at war with one another over many years. Therefore I would propose that this section he greatly reduced and left instead to the pages of the Constantinian Order rather than going into detail on a biographical page with all the wikipedia rules concerning this. I would suggest that any references to Mr Sainty be replaced with more impartial and unconnected sources to the subject. Why do you think?

Getting back to the point of my original reason for going on line to suggest some amendments it is quite wrong to my mind to suggest that both the Portuguese Government knighthood and the Slovak presidential award are 'frankly-insignificant'. In fact some might consider that quite rude coming from two prominent European member states! A look at both the Heads of state awards show that both awards are quite rare and rarely bestowed unless for good reason.

I have proposed them too precisely because Anthony Bailey has longstanding roles with each nation and both awards where given outside of any connection to the controversies with the Order of Constantine and as can be seen from the embassy links which I have referenced. I therefore suggest again that we add those. There is no whitewashing on my part but it does seems however from your own talk pages that both (talk) may not not have an unbiased role in what concerns the order and the Naples royal family or in the case of CaribbeanTruth (talk) has seemingly a sole interest in Caribbean matters relating to Anthony Bailey and shows this account interesting being created at the time of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday which are both covered by the wikipedia ruling as I understand it. Surely if these matters are so relevant then other sources can be found to other than the the mail group. (talk) orelofhampton —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To engage with the process of improving this encyclopedia, please see the discussion of these "awards" above, and provide new arguments rather than rehashing old ones. And, more specifically, we quote Sainty in the article for facts on which he is an indisputable authority. I'm sorry that I have to reiterate: this is Wikipedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion. Please read and digest our guidelines on conflict of interest before returning to this subject. Hunc (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"a rival Constantine order based in Spain" - what? The Constantine Order, which is based in Spain, I think you'll find. As opposed to "A branch office based in England of a rival Constantine order based in France." Or whatever order you're founding yourself, for all that it matters... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the reasons for the Portuguese and Slovak awards are clear from independant and well recognised sources. Both awards were granted on his merits from what each course says. Maybe a compromise could be to record that the subject has been honoured various other countries including Portugal and Slovakia. Its quite surprising that you are so dismissive of two important and historic European nations. As a new editor I must say I find your confrontational language rather bullying. As to the references to the Constantinian order there are clearly two branches or orders and so to be quoting one major source and official regarding the other doesn't seem balanced or appropriate and should anyway be left to the page of the order itself. This is a biography of a living person and form what I read there are rules and the need to be balanced and unconfrontational in the use of language. Its seems the last three editors of Baston, Hun and CaribbeanTruth are hardly neutral having read their comments in this user page. I hope common sense would prevail and the references to Portugal and Slovakia are included and someone else look to trim down the references to the Constantinian order in line with the rules of wikipedia. I have no personal or professional connection with the subjectOrelofHampton (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC) (talk) orelofhampton

A "new user" whose only edits to date have been concerned with this article? Sure. Are you familiar with WP:COI? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit war

At this edit a comment attributed to the Mail on Sunday - a fairly reputable source - has been removed again. I note that the MoS is not the Daily Mail, a deprecated source, and the MoS is usable, certainly if there's a consensus to use it. But I also note that the comment referenced to the MoS duplicates one from another and better source. We don't need duplicated comments and I suggest that the simplest way to stop this edit war is to leave the duplication out and save arguments about the MoS for another and more appropriate occasion. Hunc (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Same printer, same building, same website, sunday version of the same newspaper, not a good source because they make stuff up. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)