Talk:Landi family

[Untitled]

How do I combine the identical references in the list to more than one reference in the artical. When I started for some reason I would put in a reference and it would just list it once pointing to different parts of the article. I want to get these references down to like no more than 20. There are too many its getting as large as the article74.61.193.6 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks David Landi[reply]

Landi and the Principality of Monaco

In English and Italian Learn to read.

http://www.worldlingo.com/S5JZ3IUWwlQn4br7RFYpCWsDT_vqpf3T0/translate

http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stato_Landi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.186.230 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that Federico Landi created the Principality of Monaco and gave it to his nephew, Honoré II, Prince of Monaco, is a seriously skewed view of history. Reading the History of Monaco, it is clear that Honoré II was the legitimate heir of Ercole, Lord of Monaco, and that Landi was merely the regent until Honoré came of age. In fact, if the History of Monaco article is to be believed, Landi, a close ally of Spain, almost gave away the fledgling nation. Honoré took the title of Prince himself, and it was only through the protection of France that Monaco escaped total overrun by Spain.

The House of Landi has surely had its place in Italian history, but this article appears to be an attempt to over-aggrandize that place. Please remember to keep the article neutral and to keep family pride out of the equation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So here are the facts. First and most important Honore II was a child incapable of ruling anything when his father was assassinated and mother died in child birth. Then their castle/ home came under attack and they would have been killed if it were not for their uncle Prince Frederico came to Monaco and grabbed them from the family staff who had been hiding them, he then escorted them into exile in Milan. Until he could go back to Monaco and stabilize it. He not only save Monaco he saved the only Royal family left two children his niece and nephew who would have certainly perished. My sources are real historical fact. Everyone wants to put a spin on it. you have to pay attention to the dates, They were little kids and would certainly have been killed if not for Frederico. Quote from Royal site below:

Jeanne Grimaldi was the sister of HSH Prince Honore II of Monaco. Born in 1596, one of three children, to Lord Hercules I of Monaco and Maria Landi. Her brother Honore was born the following year but their lives were soon disrupted in a violent way by the assassination of Lord Hercules on November 23, 1604. It was only the latest tragedy for the Grimaldi family as their mother, Lady Maria Landi of Valdetare, had died giving birth to her third child, a daughter. Now, the palace was under attack and all their lives were threatened. Jeanne and Honore were hid by the family servants when the attack came and later the children were taken into the care of their uncle Federico Prince of Valdetare. After securing his position as regent Valdetare escorted Jeanne and Honore into exile in Milan where they would be safe until the situation in Monaco could be stabilized

If I skewed anything it was that I didnt give enough Credit to Federico. He saved their lives and their country.74.61.193.6 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Panfiro Landus Roman Senator reference will be coming in next couple of days its being forwarded to me two Italian History books on in Italian one in Latin getting them translated, There are very few references to the names of hundreds of Roman Senators that served over the History of the Roman Empire unless of course they did something historic. Most didnt74.61.193.6 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honore took the title of Prince years after his uncle saved his life the history you mention was later. Federico could easily had left them in Milan, Think of the period and people we are talking about. Assassination was common and the Landi Princes were quite capable74.61.193.6 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

This article includes a coat of arms that is ascribed to the House of Landi preceding the 10th Century. But coats of arms did not come into common usage to represent individuals or houses until the 12th or 13th century, so an ascription of a coat of arms to the family prior to the 10th century is likely false. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually although technically correct when referring to the term "Coat of Arms", the Colors of the Landi Flag, Blue with a white stripe go back to the 9th century and are listed in a 15th century incunabula that I own on battle flag colors, it is sitting in front of me. But some things are not worth the effort. this is one. The picture is identical to the one in the book. Hand painted over 500 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.76.125 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The study of history 500 years ago was not what it is today, and 500 year old history texts are not generally considered reliable sources. Modern historians might look at your incunabula as one source among many in trying to determine the facts of the past, but they would never rely on a single source to assume they knew the truth of the matter, and neither should Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention please

This article appears to be about a notable noble house in the history of Italy, but, unfortunately, it has suffered as many articles of this nature do from the unbridled enthusiasm of its author, a claimant to descendancy from this noble house. There are kernels of useful truth in the article, but much of it is highly unreliable (with some of the cited sources actually pointing out that the claims made were discovered to be fraudulent!). I'm not a historian, and I don't speak Italian, so many of the sources are not available to me. I would hope that an expert from either or both of the listed projects could help wrestle this article into shape. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. You cant challenge the source if you cant read it. Most of the indisputable information is in Italian and Latin. The article has been boiled down to a list of facts from Italian sources, Italian historians. If there was a specific fact in doubt you could have named it. Grazie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.76.125 (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started going through this article to verify the claims against the sources, and to assess the reliability of the sources themselves. Only a couple paragraphs in I'm thinking of giving up—it's no exaggeration to say that almost every claim made by the article has major problems. Either the sources are not reliable (self-published websites, Wikipedia mirrors, etc.), the sources are dead links for which I can find no extant version, or the sources exist and are reliable but do not support the claims. Furthermore, many claims rest upon sources in Italian, a language the article's author admits he understands poorly (see his two messages at it:Discussione:Landi)—given his frequent misinterpretations of the English sources, I don't see how he can be relied upon for the Italian ones.

Given that others have already cut down the article significantly by removing copyright violations and obviously misleading or irrelevant sources, I am thinking that the best thing to do with the remainder would be to nominate it for deletion. Though the topic is clearly notable, there is very little in the present article worth salvaging (and trying to do so anyway would probably require more effort than starting afresh). Thoughts? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made specific appeals at WT:WikiProject History and WT:WikiProject Italy. Let's see if anything comes of that. I believe this topic is too notable to delete before giving it every chance. I also doubt you'd find much support for deletion; rather you'd be told to fix it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion

TRY THIS: In English and Italian.

http://www.worldlingo.com/S5JZ3IUWwlQn4br7RFYpCWsDT_vqpf3T0/translate

http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stato_Landi (ESTABLISHED PAGE on ITALIAN WIKIPEDIA FOR YEARS)

I have 4 emails form Italians complaining that you guys are racist and interfering in Italian articles. When it gets to 7

or 8 I will publish in Wiki and the Foundation, and I mean EVERYWJERE.

HISTORIANS remember what they do for a living??

I have over 200 references from historians and other experts in the Landi Family book I wrote now in editing about to be

puplished.(Real publisher) I was tempted to cut and paste the almost 600 pages into your talk page but then I would be as

immature as you.

Some historians if Wiki has any multilingual editors If you need them let me know.

^ Pongini, p. 42 ^ Pongini, p. 44 ^ De Rosa, p.101 ^ Pongini, p. 45 ^ Cremonesi, p. 12 ^ Cremonesi, p. 13 ^ Pongini, p. 29 ^ Pigorini, p. 10 ^ Samorè, p. 3 ^ De Rosa, pp. 68-70 ^ De Rosa, p. 90 ^ De Rosa, p. 274 Bibliografia[modifica | modifica wikitesto] Alessandra Cremonesi, Bardi e i Landi, Centro Studi della Valle del Ceno, Bardi 1980. Riccardo De Rosa, Lo Stato Landi (1257-1682), TIP.LE.CO., Piacenza 2009. Luigi Pigorini, Memorie storico-numismatiche di Borgotaro, Bardi e Compiano, Grazioli, Parma 1863. Giovanni Pongini, Storia di Bardi e della Valceno, Palatina, Parma 1975. Antonio Samorè, Lo Stato Landi, Archivio Vaticano, Città del Vaticano 1983. Voci correlate[modifica | modifica wikitesto] Bardi (Italia) Castello di Bardi Castello di Compiano Castello di Rivalta Feudi imperiali Landi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.186.230 (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address several points about this post:

The Italian article it:Stato Landi was created in December 2014. I'm not aware that this constitutes an "established article for years".
The presence of an article on the Italian Wikipedia has little relevance: each wiki establishes their own standards of quality and determines which articles will be allowed to remain.
There is no anti-Italian bias here. This article has been allowed to remain and has been improved as much as possible. The fact that it was incredibly poorly written to begin with, and continues to be marred by more and more introductions of terrible, sometimes incomprehensible text speaks to a problem of competence of the editor involved, who has gotten himself blocked for various issues, including copyright violations and sockpuppetry.
There is no contention that an entity called "Stato Landi" (the Landi State) existed for a period of time in Italian history. The only contention is that the entity's history is already completely documented in this article, and doesn't require a separate article.
The recent revisions of this article (specifically this one) have more to do with the provenance of the removed text (having been generated by a user abusing multiple accounts in violation of Wikipedia policy) and the quality of said text (see my comments above about terrible, incomprehensible text) than with the "correctness" of the information.

Legitimate users, citing legitimate sources, are free to add to this article. Illegitimate users, seeking to fan their own ego, are not needed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This mess

I saw WikiDan61's note at WikiProject Italy and came to take a look. I'm not a historian or an expert on Italian history but I do speak Italian without difficulty and have in the past written about this family – at Val di Taro and at Sanvitale conspiracy (where I find that I laid out the hors d'oeuvres but failed to deliver the meat and potatoes, need to go back to that!). I see that Psychonaut has also had a crack at this, and proposed deletion as the best cure. I'm with WikiDan61, I don't think there are valid grounds for deletion. However, I do propose removal of all the sockpuppet text, if consensus is reached on this page for that solution. Taking this down sentence by sentence is extremely time-consuming, and time seems to be at a premium these days (answering point by point matters raised by anatid IPs on this page is equally a waste of bona-fide editors' time). Looking for the nuggets of truth in this screed is, like panning for gold, unlikely to be rewarding. I think it should all go. I'd then rewrite a couple of paragraphs based on reliable (and visible) sources, along the lines of what I did at Frangipane family after I made this drastic edit. Is there any support for something like that here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and lots of it. When the page was first being created I went back and forth with the creator who (not surprisingly) accused me of being a cretin and anti-Italian because I didn't like the hagiography he had written about his family. Not having sufficient background in history, I couldn't provide anything better, so I walked away. If JL&N is willing to take a valid crack at this, then I'm all for it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Since pretty much all the text in this article comes from the sockpuppet/master, what you are proposing is pretty much the same thing as what I proposed back in June. Whether or not the article gets formally deleted first doesn't really matter if all the text is going to be replaced anyway. —Psychonaut (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I've taken that as a consensus, and gone ahead with clearing the poor-quality material previously added here. If I've inadvertently swept away any good content please feel free to restore it. I've temporarily stored the previous references at Talk:Landi family/references in case they are of any use. I'll try to expand the page a bit over the next few days. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I like it. Nicely done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]