Jump to content

Talk:Massimo family/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

You have to prove what you declare

Historybuff, regarding Colonna and other princely roman families, the head of the family has the heraldic treatment of His Excellency (H.E) and bears the tile before the surname. Thus if you say that 'the family is represented by' you have to write the head of the family itself, for the Colonna is H.E. the Prince Marcantonio Colonna, Prince of....etc.. But this is an article on a family, it is not a genealogical directory, otherwise you should be citing the other brothers and sisters of Marcantonio Colonna. Remember also you are writing about living persons and I'm not sure they want to be listed here with their names and date of birth. In Italy there's a law which prohibites it unless you have a permission.


Regarding the Massimo article I disagree with all you wrote:

1. You don't reference your conjecture Gotha...it was recognised - throughout Europe - as the definitive reference source. It's not true, and I would like to know where you read it, apart from your reference to an online article on economicexpert.com [1].


Gotha was not and is not an authoritative source for italian titles because it is not an expression of a national official College of arms nor was supervised by a Herald's College.

Where are your verifiable sources?


2. Again, italian titles were not abolished with the republican constitution and this you know it very well otherwise you couldn't write Stefano Massimo Prince of Roccasecca dei Volsci, as the title of Prince of Roccasecca dei Volsci was granted in 1933 and referring to what you say it should have been abolished in 1948 (hey, why don't you amend the article). Where are your verifiable sources?


Here's the proof that titles weren't abolished: The law that governed italian titles remained valid and here you have the proof [2] (the italian government is still referencing it -law n. 652 by Royal decree 7 june 1943- for heraldic regulations).


3. How can you say the papal decree was saying Princes for all the members of the Massimo family if you never saw the papal decree nor you reference it?

You also know very well that titles (granted by the Pope) in roman princely families (Borghese, Colonna, Barberini, etc.) were for firstborns only. Only the princes of the Sacred Roman Empire (not granted by the Pope) bear all the title of 'Prince', with no predicate. If you claim to be an historian with an interest in papal nobility you should know all this.


Historybuff, honestly, I don't see a great scientific discussion here. I proved what I said with references but you didn't prove anything. Please comment the 3 points above. Fabritius (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Re: 'Colonna family' article @ Fabritius - regarding your point about the 'Colonna family' article. It is not a genealogical directory, I agree. I only listed the main title holders (Prince and Duke of Paliano, Prince of Avella and Prince of Stigliano and their heirs). Also, you wrote "Remember you are writing about living persons and I'm not sure they want to be listed with their names and date of birth. In Italy there is a law which prohibits it unless you have a (sic) permission". I know privacy laws in Italy are strict, but these aren't personal details (names and dates of birth?). If what you said was true, then there wouldn't be a single article written about a single individual in Italy anywhere on Wikipedia, or indeed in any of the Italian or foreign press, without each individual's express permission. This is obviously, factually, not the case. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Response to Fabritius's post of 30/04/10 and a polite appeal

Dear Fabritius,

With respect, I would like to politely make a request regarding the conduct of this ongoing discussion. I genuinely want to engage in a productive, civilised and non-personal discussion, and see no reason on my part to inject any 'heat' into it as Dave1185 counselled against above after your most recent post. All I am interested in is working according to the Wiki guidelines, presenting my arguments in a constructive and clear way - all with the aim of reaching a consensus, either between ourselves or with the input of other editors with a knowledge of this subject.

Each time I write here, I am presenting full, non-personal, detailed arguments, which take a considerable amount of time to put together. Yet given the amount of time I have put into writing each post, I am beginning to feel as if, no matter how clearly I lay out my arguments, and no matter how exhaustive my explanations, I am not getting anything like the same in return. You are replying with phases such as "Regarding the Massimo article I disagree with all you wrote". This can't be true as my post contained information where we agree, as well as other widely accepted historical facts. I don't believe that sort of sweeping phrase is an attempt at a proper discussion.

I have answered so many of your questions, and in some cases accusations, with clear answers, only for those answers to go unacknowledged. On the 23/04/10 I wrote "Please provide access to your sources - not to front pages of websites but to the original source material itself. Until you do, I do not feel I need to answer your points again, which until you can prove them, are just opinion", yet despite this I am still answering all of your questions, spending lots of time writing up proper research, only for it to be dismissed, not because you prove it is wrong with different source material, but because you don't agree. I have put a considerable amount of work into each of these posts, where I make numerous points in great detail with references to back them up. This has taken me a lot of time and I have a job and a family, including two young children, so I am not able to do this full time. All I ask is that I get the same sort of detailed, non-personal response back. Otherwise it feels one sided in terms of effort. Please see this for what it is - a polite appeal.

I would politely urge you to read the last post I wrote again, because the answers to your questions are already there. However, in the spirit of collaboration and being helpful, you have asked me to answer your three new questions, so I will do so.


Taking your questions in turn:


1. The 'Almanach de Gotha' as source

The original 'Almanach de Gotha' is the best known, famously accurate and incorruptible reference work on Western European heraldry (for Ducal, Princely and Royal families). While it was a family-published publication, it was published at the Gotha court, and for almost two hundred years it was recognised - throughout Europe - as the definitive reference source. Anyone with any knowledge of heraldry knows that it was a genuinely impossible publication to get listed in if the titles were not correct and supported by documentation (Papal documentation in this case). I would welcome input from other editors interested in heraldry on this point because claiming that the original 'Almanach de Gotha' (i.e. the version printed until 1944) is not a serious reference source is simply incorrect. There are various articles on the net that reference this (the one on economicexpert.com was just an example), but really this is not a matter for dispute. Saying it is not a proper source is a bit like saying that the statement 'Florence was one of the birthplaces of the Renaissance' is incorrect - it such a widely accepted thing to say that it doesn't require an official reference. I would really welcome 3rd party input here from people with an interest in this subject so we can settle this point for good.

Furthermore, the statement that the Gotha was "not an authoritative source for Italian titles" is not relevant when the title in question was originally not an Italian title - don't forget the Papal decree was issued in 1826 and the the Italian state did not exist until 1861 (35 years after the Papal decree) and the Consulta Araldica until 1869 (43 years after the Papal decree).

During one of your edit summaries, your asked 'Where do you think Justice Perthes (the publisher of the 'Almanach de Gotha') got his genealogical information from?' (see this edit), suggesting that it was from the sources that you cite, but are unable to show. So therefore, even by your very own logic, if your sources are correct, and the 'Almanach de Gotha' (by Justice Perthes) got its information from your sources, then the 'Almanach de Gotha' is, by definition, correct. How do you explain that? I have asked this question many times, yet have received no response.


2. Regarding 'Italian' (not 'Papal') titles post the 1948 constitution

In my latest post, I didn't say titles were abolished, I corrected that to writing that titles ceased to be officially recognised in Italy in 1948 when the new constitution was formed. In any case, they were never abolished by the Papacy. While not 'abolished' in Italy in 1947, titles ceased to be recognised under Italian law, and the organ of state which had regulated them, the Consulta Araldica, was eliminated. Even your source (see this link) is it a reprint of a 1943 document (i.e. before the Republic) which in the preface/first paragraph says "…della constituzione in base al quale i titoli nobiliari non vengono piu riconosciuti", which when I asked a friend to translate means "…from the constitution in which noble titles are no longer recognised". All this page seems to be doing is highlighting some of the points from the 1943 document that are still valid, while in the introduction making it clear that titles of nobility are no longer recognised by the modern Italian state.

Your point about the Prince of Roccasecca dei Volsci is not relevant as it would apply to every title the family holds. Given the date, it would have been granted by Papal and Royal decree. All Massimo titles are Papal titles - they only became Italian titles for just over 80 years - so they are all still officially-recognised by the one font of honour which remains, the Papacy. All titles ceased to be recognised under Italian law (see this Wiki article) in 1947, but as Philip M. Thomas in 'Burke's Peerage' (a recognised source on heraldry) wrote: "The Roman nobility is and always has been separate, and was not affected by the law of 1947". This was because the Roman nobility is also the Papal nobility, hence its continued official status. What this means is that the authority of the Italian State (and therefore the Consulta Araldica and the 'original' Libro D'Oro) was revoked, but the Roman nobility (given its original 'fons honorum' was and remained the Pope), remained. This is why the 1826 Papal decree has primacy of the (subsequent) parallel ruling of the now defunct Italian Heralds College.


3. Regarding referencing the 1826 Papal decree

I am genuinely confused as to how you can write "How can you say the Papal decree was saying (sic) Princes for all members of the Massimo family if you never…..reference it (the Papal decree)?" I don't understand how you can write that, when I have referenced it extensively in my last three posts. The papal decree is referenced in the 1922, 1905 and 1925 'Almanach de Gotha' editions (and is therefore not a one-off mistake) and clearly says 'Roman Prince for all descendants 17 June 1826' ('Prince Rom. pour tout les descendants 27 Juin 1826'). The reference is here on p385 of the 1922 'Gotha' (see link here). I cannot understand how you can say that I do not provide a reference for it?

Given the primacy of the Papal decree of 27 June 1826 over the now defunct Consulta Araldica of Italy, unless you can show the original document (i.e. the decree itself from 1826) proving it says something different, then the original copy of the Almanach de Gotha is the closest authentic source that exists to confirm the Papal decree, given it is a verifiable source which directly refers to it.


Before I conclude, let me summarise a few points (not a comprehensive list), all of which are detailed in the post above (see my last post):


1) The Massimo titles were created as Papal titles (all of them), and although they were also Italian titles for the duration of the Italian Monarchy, their Papal origin and continued legitimacy is primary

2) The Italian heraldic sources you cite (but do not show) were relevant between 1869-1947, but no longer

3) The 'Almanach de Gotha' is a recognised reference source. Anyone with any knowledge of heraldry in Europe will acknowledge the original (pre-1944) version as the best known and most reliable of all sources on this subject

4) The Gotha is referenced and verifiable here, online, with links to the original source material (a scanned version of the original hardback text, held in a library). It meets Wiki standards as a 'verifiable source'

5) I along with other editors on this page, repeatedly and politely, have asked you to show your sources (not just name them), so their contents or 'what they say' can be verified. You have not done this


In your points 1) and 2) you have simply repeated my own words back to me (in bold) regarding verifiable sources. I have asked you to show these repeatedly, yet despite this you have not. My verifiable source is the 'Almanach de Gotha' (1905, 1922 and 1925), an original copy of which I have linked online. It meets Wiki rules as a verifiable source. It has content that Wiki editors can read, clearly explaining the rules regarding titles in the Massimo family. It is legitimate, an original copy, and is held in a 3rd party library. It is widely accepted as the 'gold standard' source in these matters.

I, and others, keep asking you to show your alternative verifiable source material but you do not. You simply can't say things like "You claim to be a historian….so you should know this" - that is not proving anything, it just expressing your own opinion. It seems that if someone does not agree with you - even though you have not shown any actual evidence for the points you make - then their research is wrong. That approach cannot work on a forum such as Wikipedia.

In your last line you wrote "I proved what I said with references but you didn't prove anything". Do you really believe this? You did not prove what you said with references - you just cited names of sources, but nobody can verify what they actually say, even if they were the right sources (which I disagree they are for the reasons extensively laid out above). I did provide proof: original, verifiable source material and detailed explanations and arguments. I am at a loss as to how you can write such a statement when it is so obviously incorrect.

I have written extensively in repeated posts, and have provided all that has been asked and more. I am asking you politely to please read the posts again, then to respond to them with verifiable evidence as to why you are right, rather than just brushing my research aside and writing your views without showing any verifiable proof.

I also welcome the input of 3rd party editors with a knowledge of this subject as I think this will enrich the debate. I will continue to try and elicit 3rd party opinion.

I am genuinely appealing to you, politely. I honestly want to have a proper debate and a civilised discussion, which is something I genuinely look forward to.

In the spirit of genuine collaboration!

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Response

Nowhere does Wikipedia require that a source must be “an expression of a national official College of arms” or be “was supervised by a Herald's College” in order for it to be a reliable source. If one were to accept Fabricitius unique definition, one would have to discard famed heraldist [Johannes Rietstap]], along with Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, Charles Boutell and many other clearly reliable sources.

Taking a look at Google scholar, we see that Almanach de Gotha is heavily cited.[3]. It also returns a large number of hits on Google Books.[4] The 4th hit listed there refers to the Almanach de Gotha as “The ultimate authority for the genealogies of royal and princely houses of Europe and their descendents, first published in 1763 in the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg”. This is clearly a very reliable source, regardless of Fabricitius’ opinion.

It’s also easy to find evidence that the Italian titles were abolished.[5] Here’s a few sample quotes “Italian titles themselves have been legally abolished and are only used socially”, “Italy Titles were abolished by the 1947 Constitution”. The link that Fabricitius gives does not support his claims as it clearly says that “titles are no longer recognized”.[ http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.governo.it%2FPresidenza%2Fcerimoniale%2Fonorificenze_araldica%2Faraldica%2Fnormativa%2Fregio_decreto070643.html&sl=auto&tl=en] Scanning the Italian Constitution, posted online by the Italian government, section XIV clearly says “Titles of nobility shall not be recognized”.[ http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf] Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Edward321

I never said that Wikipedia required that a source must be “an expression of a national official College of arms” or be “was supervised by a Herald's College”. I said that Gotha is not an official source for italian titles as there was a national Herald's College with official reliable directories approved by Royal decree (Elenco ufficiale nobiliare italiano and Libro d'oro della nobiltà italiana), as in any other nation. All the heraldists and herald's associations are referencing these directories as the autoritative sources when talking about italian aristocracy, like f.i. CILANE which is the european nobility society [6], CNI, the italian nobility society [7], the Order of Malta (Elenco storico della nobiltà italiana (compilato in conformità dei decreti e delle lettere patenti originali e sugli atti ufficiali di archivio della Consulta araldica dello Stato italiano), Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta. Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, Roma 1960.), or many wikipedia's other articles like f.i. these about the official directory Libro d'oro [8] and the Consulta araldica [9] All these references and sources were simply deleted by Historybuff1930 from the Massimo article with no reason. These too are reliable sources (plus some are wikipedia articles). As soon as I cite that sources these get deleted by Historybuff1930. Why?


If you take a look at Google books you'll see that the sources I cite are there: [10] [11]. If you look at Google scholar here thy are [12], [13].


Regarding the 4th hit ([14])here [15] this issue lists correctly the Massimo titles because it has been amended: titles in the Massimo family are for firtborns only.


Italian titles have nver been abolished like you can read on some wikipedia articles [16], [17], or f.i. here to name but a few [18], [19]. Here you can find also the original article XIV of the republican constitution [20] which says merely that the titles aren't recognised any more by the italian government, meaning that titles are not any more under a heraldic legislation, as happened before via the Consulta araldica and here [21] it is very clearly explained.

Right here (translated automatically) [ http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.governo.it%2FPresidenza%2Fcerimoniale%2Fonorificenze_araldica%2Faraldica%2Fnormativa%2Fregio_decreto070643.html&sl=auto&tl=en] you can see that the heraldic law (Royal Decree of June 7, 1943, No 652 652) is still cited and used by the italian government (of course not in the sections pertaining to titles which the state doesn't use any more). Btw, the translation you provided there is not correct, the italian text [22] says that the law is not more 'in use' (but still remains valid) and not that it is 'no longer active', which is very different. In fact, the government's office for heraldry still refers to that legislation calling it 'Normativa araldica', i.e. heraldic legislation. - Fabritius (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fabritius

Actually, what you said was “Gotha was not and is not an authoritative source for italian titles because it is not an expression of a national official College of arms nor was supervised by a Herald's College.” As I have amply shown, this statement of yours is clearly incorrect. Gotha was and is an authoritative source.

Your first link, CILANE, [[23]] is private organization. It is neither “a national official College of arms nor was supervised by a Herald's College” It does not seem to mention the Elenco ufficiale nobiliare italiano or the Libro d'oro della nobiltà italiana at all, let alone mention their value as sources.

Your second link, CNI [24] clearly uses Gotha as a source.[25] It also is neither “a national official College of arms nor was supervised by a Herald's College”.

Checking your Google Scholar links, we see "elenco ufficiale della nobiltà italiana" is cited in 11 works.[26] "libro d'oro della nobiltà italiana" is cited by 32.[27] “Almanach de Gotha” is cited by 3470 works.

So scholars have cited Gotha 80 times as often as the other two sources combined, yet you seem to be refusing to accept Gotha as an authoritative source.

The Dritto Nobiliare website appears to have been created by a private individual who claims expertise, but there is not enough information to tell if that claim is factual, nor if their opinion is correct.[28] The defunct L'Araldica Italiana website is also by a private individual with no evidence if their opinion is authoritative or correct.[29]

You dismiss the translation of the Italian Constitution that I found as incorrect.[30] Did you miss the fact that that site is the official website of Senate of Italy? And that it is their translation, not mine or one done with Goodle Translate?

This site that you mention does not support your opinion.[31] It shows that this agency now deals with things like municipal coats of arms since noble titles are “no longer recognized”. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Edward321

My statement is correct, Gotha is not an expression of a national official College of arms (in particular italian) nor was supervised by a Herald's College and you still didn't prove the contrary.

If you cite statistics to prove your claims, well, you should at least divide the citations found by the number of nations represented in the Gotha and then maybe take the average citations per nation and you should even investigate how many citations are referencing Gotha's italian titles. Plus you have to normalize to each nation's population otherwise your numbers are useless.

The 3470 works on Gotha you reference bear no evidence if the opinion of the editors are authoritative or correct and you surely didn't investigate.


Maybe we're just misunderstanding. I say that Gotha is not the official source for italian titles. I'm not saying anything about the other nations represented therein.

It's true that CILANE [[32]] and CNI [33] are private organizations, but these are respectively The Italian and The European Nobility Association). Also Gotha was and is private. But these 2 organizations are authoritative and recognized by the Herald's colleges of various kingdoms, like you can see f.i. here for Belgium [34]. And yes, CNI's site writes the word Gotha [35] but if you look therein you'll discover it's not a directory, it lists just royal families and the links are not to the original Gotha but to a private on line directory which is only improperly called Gotha [36]. This it is the same source Historybuff1930 keeps on referencing and which clearly demonstrates that Valerio Massimo (aka Historybuff1930) and his brothers and sister - yes, he has brothers but doesn't list them - don't bear titles [37].

Your reference [38] is saying exactly what I wrote (I do not see why you're complaining), here it is again: "...Here you can find also the original article XIV of the republican constitution [39] which says merely that the titles aren't recognized any more by the italian government, meaning that titles are not any more under a heraldic legislation, as happened before via the Consulta araldica and here [40] it is very clearly explained."

Nowhere is written that titles have been abolished like you assumed (btw it is your opinion, though not supported by evidence).

The site that I mentioned [41] exactly supports what I declared (I don't see why you're complaining, you missed the point - maybe you should be less aggressive and more scientific). For you reference here it is again what I wrote:

"...you can see that the heraldic law (Royal Decree of June 7, 1943, No 652 652) is still cited and used by the italian government (of course not in the sections pertaining to titles which the state doesn't use any more). Btw, the translation you provided there is not correct, the italian text [42] says that the law is not more 'in use' (but still remains valid) and not that it is 'no longer active', which is very different. In fact, the government's office for heraldry still refers to that legislation calling it 'Normativa araldica', i.e. heraldic legislation."

BTW, the site I referenced is the Italian Government's site and the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri is the Presidency of the Council of Ministers which is the institutional structure to support the activities of the Prime Minister and yes, they deal even with things like municipal coats of arms.

To conclude, you said titles have been abolished and I proved they were not. Another proof of it you can find it right in your reference [43] (which I never dismissed nor said it was incorrect like you pretend I did) and exactly in the sentence "The place-names included in those existing before 28 October 1922 shall serve as part of the name" which clearly shows that the official directory (Libro d'Oro which you can find it here [44]) is still used and that titles were not abolished. --Fabritius (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


@Historybuff1930: I'm sorry, I didn't answer yet because of lack of time (you're a little bit verbose, to my opinion - don't take it personally) I'll do it asap. Just a brief note to your 2nd point. The titles were never abolished. If you look at my answers to Edwards321 you'll find all the links even that to the to the republican constitution. The link I cited doesn't say titles are no longer recognized (your translation), it says titles are not any more recognized which means from that point onward the italian government doesn't do what was soing before through the Consulta araldica. Another proof is in the Constitution (see the above answer). The title of Prince of Roccasecca was granted in 1933 by the King of Italy, not by the Pope, thus if italian titles (during the fascist era) would have been abolished, that title wouldn't exist any more. - --Fabritius (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


@ Fabritius: no need to apologise - I welcome you taking the time to respond properly so no need to rush. You should know that what you call '"verbose", others would call time-consuming, comprehensive, detailed, correctly-referenced research. I am happy to wait for a considered and detailed reply from you which will hopefully address and/or answer all of the points I made, as I have answered every question you have asked of me (with verifiable source material).

However, I need to make an important point here as it now appears you are attempting to 'bully' another editor into accepting your views in exactly the same way as you have tried to do with me on this page and elsewhere.

It seems that unless an editor agrees with what you say (but repeatedly do not provide proof for), then they are 'biased'. You are now calling Edward321 "biased" and "aggressive" and requesting that a 'calm tag' be inserted into his post (see this post), despite his rational response and there being no evidence whatsoever of any bias. You previously accused me of the same. You have admitted to having a clear conflict of interest (a proxy for bias) and, despite being counselled by more experienced editors to to so, you are not maintaining a Neutral point of view attitude. You are also being personal and uncivil and have already been warned about this (see this post by Dave1185), in accusing editors (in this case Edward321) of being "aggressive" and of having "no arguments pertaining to the issue". You have similarly dismissed my equally rational fact-based arguments. Perhaps you will also falsely accuse Edward321 of being a member of your family, as you falsely suggested I was (and repeat above)? Perhaps he is Prince Stefano Massimo, father of Prince Valerio Massimo, hence the bias? Or have you considered the more obvious fact that neither Edward321 nor I (two totally independent editors on Wikipedia) are biased, and that we are just laying out the facts? Politely I ask you again to stop these personal attacks on both myself and any other editor who disagrees with you.

NB: The title of 'Prince of Roccasecca dei Volsci' was brought of out abeyance in 1932 for Prince Vittorio Massimo. As Debrett's (the noted heraldic publication in the UK) wrote in its 1992 edition of 'Debrett's People of Today' and its entry for Prince Stefano Massimo, the current holder of the title, it was created by 'Royal, Papal and Civil decree' in 1932. Therefore, like all other Massimo titles, it was an Italian title but also a Papal title, and remains a Papal title (with an ongoing 'fons honorum' in the Papacy), so your point is incorrect.

I will let Edward321 respond to your last post above ('Response to Edward321'), but please I urge you, again politely, to take heed of the advice Dave1185 has repeatedly given you, in particular when he wrote "Please stop your smart-alec remarks of other editors unless you want to get BLOCKED for being POINTY" (see this post).

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


@Historybuff: I said that I might have a COI but my point of view is neutral because I'm referencing official laws and sources. You're citing other sources like Debrett but where do I see his statement? It's not verifiable, plus this is his opinion.


It's not true the title of Prince of Roccasecca is a papal one. This is a big mistake. Did you see the original document? How can you say such a thing if you claim to be an historian?

You're misunderstanding the meaning of fons honorum. You seem to forget that there was a King of Italy and that the title was granted by him (Roccasecca is an italian town not a papal one!). There's no Papal decree for that title. Where is you verifiable source?

Regarding your last point: are you trying to stop me from answering? I don't see your point in always repeating these phrases like you did almost everywhere like f.i. on Dave1185's discussion page "I fear Fabritius's clear conflict of interest (see this post on 'Fabritius's conflict of interest' for details) is making him unable to make clear, concise arguments based on real research and sources/references." Did you oversee his answer about you having a COI [45] ? Are these arguments perhaps pertaining to the subject of the discussion? Should it be a scientific discussion to resolve the issue or just a waste of time? - --Fabritius (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s.: when you or Edward321 ignore an original and authoritative source arguing with third parties opinions (which are not verifiable and might be incorrect), with false statistics as he did, I think I can use appropriately the term bias without meaning to offend you. You didn't discuss, you just ignored my statements and refused to take into account the original sources.

Consulta araldica and Libro d'oro (I referenced wikipedia's articles) were created by Royal decree. Libro d'oro is by law the official directory. The heraldic law was regulating titles and these have never been abolished. Libro d'oro is still used nowadays when someone listed therein wants to add the predicate to his surname. This is all ruled by laws which I already referenced. Should we discard all the wikipedia's articles I referenced?

When you ignore these official laws I say you're biased because I'm pretty sure you're trying to evade the issue. --Fabritius (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


@ Fabritius: I am still awaiting your reply to my numerous, extensively researched posts above, which you promised to provide in your post of 07/05/10. If you disagree with any of my points, I look forward to original, verifiable source material to back up your arguments (as I provided). All is explained extensively above (see posts on verifiable source material) and I welcome your response whenever you have the time to put a comprehensive answer together. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Historybuff: Give him some time as I'm arranging for him to upload some scanned official documents to photobucket. Once completed, I'll link them for you to read, but right now we are still short of the last and final piece, hopefully he should be able to get it up by tomorrow. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


@ Dave1185: Many thanks Dave. For the record, I was not trying to rush Fabritius into responding - in fact I have repeatedly said that he should take the time to compile a comprehensive answer. My point was merely that I was being asked further questions without getting responses to the original, exhaustive posts I wrote earlier, so I felt that it would be best to wait for those responses, whenever that were possible, instead of me putting in more time repeating arguments I have already laid out.

Regarding the ongoing discussion, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a key point. While I have repeatedly asked Fabritius to show his sources (and welcome the prospect of seeing them), the crux of the argument is not the fact that they have not been shown, it is about the ongoing validity of those sources in the first place, compared to the ones I have used, explained, and already shown. As I have said above, I am aware of the sources that Fabritius is citing, and indeed I have never suggested that they say something other than what he claims. My request that he show his sources was very much a secondary point - a pre-requisite if you like to having a discussion in the first place. In my post of 28/04/10 (see this post on '(1) Determining which sources are the correct ones'), the main argument (argument 1), and where all my work has gone into, is about which sources are valid and why. Even assuming Fabritius is able to somehow show his source material in a way that is verifiable, the key issue is the validity of that source material. For the reasons explained extensively in that post and on this page, I do not agree that these sources are still relevant, given the Papal (not Italian) origin of the titles in question. Indeed, when another editor (Edward321) looked at the issue of which source was primary, his research backed up my original points (see Edward321's post on which are the correct sources).

While I welcome being able to see 'what they say', let us be clear that the key disagreement here is not whether Fabritius can show his source material, but that his sources are not the correct ones, as their 'dual' validity ended in 1947 with the new Italian constitution and Republic. Only if Fabritius can show the a copy of the original Papal decree of 1826, which is clearly and directly referenced in my source, showing that it says something different, will he be able to prove his argument. If he can do that from the archives in Rome then I welcome it as it would be primary research.

I very much look forward to the ongoing discussion but just wanted to make this point clearly before we resume. The responses I have asked for are about source validity, and I welcome responses (no rush!) to that key question.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Vacation!

Sorry guys, I'll be going for a two weeks vacation starting today (Shanghai Expo here we come!). Please note that Fab has provided me with the photobucket link (given above) to his uploaded official documents, do take a look and discuss this nicely with him in the name of WP:AGF#Good faith and newcomers. Once again, I urge all parties to bear in mind of WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:BITE. Over and out~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Historybuff

Regarding your points

1. The Massimo titles were created as Papal titles (all of them). This is not correct. The title of Prince of Roccasecca was granted in 1932 and is an italian title as there was a King of Italy and Roccasecca is an otalian town. In fact this is the only title which can't be part of the name, i.e. nor Stefano nor Valerio can't add di Roccasecca to their surname (see above or point 2 below when talking about titles and the italian constitution).

2. The Italian heraldic sources you cite (but do not show) were relevant between 1869-1947, but no longer. Above you have the link to the original sources. Well, if, as you say, they were relevant between 1869-1947 this means Gotha was not correct, as I always pretended. In fact you can read (link above) that all the titles, including Prince of Roccasecca, were for firstborns only, being the main title Prince of Arsoli. You can see there the roman use of calling only the head of the family Prince (i.e. Prince Massimo). Thus the heraldic treatment for all members of the family but the head (like happens for other roman princely families, f.i. Colonna, Barberini, Borghese, Orsini etc.) is Don/Donna ....... Massimo dei Principi di Arsoli. Stefano Massimo, son of Vittorio was granted a title thus only he in his cadet branch can be called Don Stefano Massimo Prince of Roccasecca, dei Principi di Arsoli.
It is also a mistake to say that that sources are no longer relevant. They're still relevant nowadays like I already proved in the response to Esward321 by citing the italian republican constitutions ("The place-names included in those (titles) existing before 28 October 1922 shall serve as part of the name" which clearly shows that the official directory (Libro d'Oro della nobiltà italiana) is still in use in Italy and that titles have never been abolished.

3 & 4. The 'Almanach de Gotha' is a recognised reference source. I proved the Massimo titles are not correct. Gotha is not the authoritative source for italian titles. In this case titles are wrong. The modern Gotha like the one referenced by Edward321 in his statistics have been amended and show the right titles.

5. I along with other editors on this page, repeatedly and politely, have asked you to show your sources (not just name them)... . Above they are (see link).
Historybuff, you first urged me to show the sources like on 23rd April 2010 "Please provide access to your sources - not to front pages of websites but to the original source material itself. Until you do, I do not feel I need to answer your points again, which until you can prove them, are just opinion." and suddenly, when the sources were on their way to the web, you declared (3rd May 2010) "While I welcome being able to see 'what they say', let us be clear that the key disagreement here is not whether Fabritius can show his source material, but that his sources are not the correct ones...". Well, let me say this looks biased and fickle to me.

Hystorybuff, I hope you'll want to honestly examine and discuss the sources I referenced.

- Fabritius (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A request to Fabritius - please stop the edit warring you have resumed

Fabritius: I note your latest post on 14/05/10 at 15.11 on this talk page, asking if I wanted to 'discuss...the sources'. Yet a mere 36 minutes later at 15.47 on the same day, you reverted the article to your version (see Massimo edit history). You have gone back to edit warring the article without a consensus for your edits. Given the amount of work I have put into each of the arguments on this talk page over the past month, I am very disappointed that you have done this. As you know, it is against the spirit (and rules) of Wikipedia and contrary to what we were asked to do.

We were asked to discuss the different arguments over this talk page by admin Nick D so a consensus could be reached, ideally with the input from third party editors. Indeed, since the protection was lifted on 27/04/10, that is what we have both been doing. As anybody can see, I have put an enormous amount of time into my research in a series of properly-sourced, detailed, and comprehensive posts (all above). We are in the middle of a discussion, yet you have gone back to edit warring the article by simply reverting the article to your version. I note this was just after Dave1185 (who has been kindly helping you to better understand the rules of Wikipedia and giving you advice on how best to behave on this forum) posted that he would be away for two weeks and not checking on the page. He also urged us to continue the discussion in good faith. This is not in good faith.

May I politely remind you that there is now a CONSENSUS (a majority of editors agreeing) on this talk page against your additional edits, with two independent editors agreeing on the key point regarding which sources are the correct ones to use (Edward321 and myself). You cannot simply ignore this fact because you don't like it. Unlike the edit war that preceded the protection of the article on 20/04/10, we now have the well-researched views of a third editor (and not just any editor, but an extremely active and experienced Wiki editor with experience in the area) who supports the original edit, due to agreement regarding the key issue of which sources are correct. There is therefore a consensus against your additional paragraphs. As you will have seen, Edward321 subsequently reverted your edits before I even logged in and saw them myself today.

I ask you kindly to continue the discussion. I also suggest that you attempt to solicit the views of experienced third party editors to support your arguments if you can.

I am asking you politely not to make another change to the main article until you have a consensus for your edits.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Respomse

Didi you look at the documents? Probably not if you're edit warring again. Take a good look at the documents. All ypou conjectures are false as you can clearly see. I was right calling you biased.- Fabritius (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massimo_family/Archive_2&oldid=1269634279"