Talk:Zita of Bourbon-Parma/Archive 1

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

Old requested move to Zita of Bourbon of Parma

Zita was of the house of Bourbon and a princess of Parma, not a hyphenation of the two. I believe that she should be placed at Zita of Bourbon of Parma with the common, but incorrect, Zita of Bourbon-Parma redirecting to the former. It is more accurate and that way browsers of Wikipedia will learn the correct name. All members of the ducal house use "de Bourbon de Parme" in French and other variants equalling "of Bourbon of Parma". - Charles 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support The Empress was premaritally a Princess of Parma, that is, HRH Zita of Bourbon, Princess of Parma - Charles 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I believe the premise is flawed. The House was Bourbon-Parma, that is, one of the branches of the Bourbon family, and it has its own coat of arms, etc. There are many members of that branch, designated Bourbon-Parma. I believe it is similar to the bifurcations of the House of Saxony, where branches subdivided and you ended up with things like Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, or Saxe-Meiningen and Hildburghausen(from which one of Zita's daughters-in-law comes). --StanZegel (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose (weakly). I see the logic in both arguments. On balance I think the current designation is more workable as a page name. I think it should either be royal house name or geographic reference and the former fits closer into the list of other royals. I understand what Charles is trying to do, but I think it would make things more complicated to follow. There is enough opposition on Wikipedia to using royal titling. Making things too complicated could alienate people who support the current system, but I am open to persuasion. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This request move is old and there was a mistake in which it wasn't closed properly. There is no need to continue voting. Charles 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Shilkanni 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No source for this usage cited (and I've certainly never seen one). Wikipedia should avoid, as far as possible, inventing its own terminology, however logical. Septentrionalis 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Please see above (reason for request) with note to redirect situation. - Charles 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: StanZegel; The house was Bourbon, the territory was Parma. Technically, she should only be Zita of Parma! Her father wasn't the Duke of Bourbon-Parma, but just Parma. Being "of Bourbon" only related to his house (Robert of Bourbon, Duke of Parma). Similarly, the Saxon families were members of the house of Wettin. Zita's daughter-in-law is a princess of the *territory* of *Saxe-Meiningen and Hildburghausen* and a member of the house of *Wettin*. The designation Bourbon-Parma is incorrect and flawed in itself. it doesn't even make the territorial designation of the duke or the duchy. All I ask is that the common, incorrect usage redirect to the correct usage. The point of having this website to begin with is to educate, n'est pas? - Charles 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I've removed this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move. If this changes, feel free to add another request. --Lox (t,c) 20:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Princess of Bourbon-Parma not Parma

  1. The change made in the article's reference to Zita as "Princess of Parma" instead of "Princess of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented before, but here goes:
    1. The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
    2. As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature.
    3. It is how they are referred to legally:
      1. One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine).
      2. Similarly, in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (By Royal Decree of 15 May 1996 No.96.000163, the four children of HRH princess Irene, namely Carlos Javier Bernardo, Margarita Maria Betriz, Jaime Bernardo and Maria-Carolina "de Bourbon de Parme" are incorporated in the Dutch nobility with the title of prince and princess and the predicate royal highness) (emphasis mine).
      3. And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme.
    4. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911.
    5. Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
      1. The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine).
      2. But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine).
      3. The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (emphasis theirs).
    6. No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal patent of investiture that would normally specify the titular details treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and apparently earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former. The English translation of that title is invariably "Prince of Bourbon-Parma".
    7. The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Zita was born 30+ years after deposition. Lethiere 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the recycling. There isn't strong enough evidence to change what it was at for Zita. I am changing it as it uses both Bourbon and Parma. Relevant Gothas and geneologies of the era use the form "of Bourbon of Parma" and "of Bourbon, Prince/Princess of Parma" Charles 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What "relevant" Gothas, please? And what genealogies that are more authoritative when it comes to dynastic titles than the Almanach de Gotha and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Furstliche Hauser? I have seen none that refer to Zita as "Princess of Parma". I have repeatedly posted unrefuted exhaustive evidence and the most reputable sources showing that Zita and her family were known during and since her lifetime as Princes of Bourbon-Parma rather than as Princes of Parma. I have yet to see any reliable evidence that they were widely, legally or by self-identification known as "of Parma", and even if some examples exist, members of this family are most widely known as "of Bourbon-Parma" not "of Parma", which is the applicable Naming Convention: "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." I have seen no reputable source that translates the particles of this family's title into "Prince of Bourbon of Parma": when translated into English, the second "of" almost invariably becomes a hyphen. Two particles are only used when this title is given in languages other than English.
I have tried to meet you half-way on this dynasty's titulature by proposing to refer to members of the dynasty as "of Parma" when they were born prior to deposition from their throne and the disappearance of their realm from Europe's maps in 1859. I cannot see justification based on any principle for leaving the family titled in violation of Wiki's Naming Convention. Lethiere 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


The 1901 Gotha, the 1907 Austrian State Handbook, the 1910 Gotha and decrees of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg (modern times), Emperor of Austria, Dukes of Parma, etc. all use the form "of Bourbon, ... of Parma" or "of Bourbon of Parma". Bourbon-Parma is shorthand and doesn't exist as a title. For the same reason, we have the article Elisabeth of Bavaria rather than Elisabeth in Bavaria, but the article uses the right form. You might as well get on the case of all Greek monarchs, dukes and duchesses in Bavaria and all over titles you deem unfit for Wikipedia. You are wrong when it comes to turning a second particle into a hyphen and you only bring up rules relevant for the naming of the article. Charles 15:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This argument mistakenly conflates two separate issues: 1. The title used by cadets of the family, and 2. The translation of that title. On point 2, reputable sources may use "the form" of Bourbon of Parma, but they do not use those actual words when writing in English, so the comparison is inapt. Rather, they do so in French or German. When these dynasts' title is translated into English so that the particle used is translated as "of", the second "of" is almost invariably dropped, and a hyphen may be substituted. Your contention that this is "shorthand and doesn't exist as a title" is refuted by the fact that as recently as 1989 Prince Sixte Henri filed an appeal to a lawsuit in the court of France, where he was domiciled, and did so as "Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme" -- so deletion of the second "of" is not confined to the English version of the name even in legal documents. It is further documented in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica which is not known for preferring colloquial language, and which clearly indicates that the hyphenate title was in use before World War I (see the article "Bulgaria", wherein the bride of King Ferdinand of the Bulgarians is referred to as "Marie Louise of Bourbon-Parma") and is often cited at WP as authoritative on historical usage. If of Bourbon-Parma is English shorthand, may we please see a citation in a reputable source that gives the "longhand" English version that you say is more correct?
On the 2nd point, you have yet to cite a source, English, French or German, which has a better repuation for accuracy on dynastic titulature than the Almanach de Gotha and the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Furstliche Hauser (previously cited), or L'Allemagne Dynastique (Tome V, "Hohenzollern-Waldeck", page 268, where the bride of King Michael of Romania is listed as "ANNE, princesse de Bourbon de Parme -- emphasis theirs), or Burke's Guide to the Royal Family (1972 edition, page 218, where Grand Duchess Charlotte's consort is listed as "HRH Prince Félix-Marie-Vincent of Bourbon-Parma"), which states that Zita or her contemporary agnates bore the title "Prince/ss of Parma". So the repeated changes to this and other articles to that title reflect a personal preference whose use is not only unsubstantiated, but contradicted by the relevant, authoritative sources cited above. The name of the article aside, inclusion of this style is inappropriate (and misleading to WP readers) unless adequately sourced. Equally reliable texts contradicting the four cites given above would be appreciated.
We seem to be going around in circles. Rather than continue a revert war, I will leave your latest revert as is for now. I request that we establish a truce for at least four days on this and similar articles, and suggest that during that time we seek a Third Opinion to help us resolve our disagreement. Below is what I would post in describing the dispute. Please edit it so that it seems fair and appropriate from your POV:
Zita of Bourbon-Parma page needs a third opinion to resolve use of a title for the article's subject. This is a civil, minor dispute, but the two parties have been unable to reach agreement on use within the article of a title, Princess of Parma, that one party feels is appropriate and in keeping with the traditional use for persons in this historical category, while the other feels the title is an inadequately sourced alternative and as such is misleading. There are a number of other WP articles in which the same principle is involved. See Talk:Zita of Bourbon-Parma. Lethiere 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Lethiere, the most I can say at the time is that inaccurate, but common usages (Bourbon-Parma) may be used in article titles, but the articles themselves use the most accurate, but not necessarily most common, form. The fact of the matter is that no decrees exist for the official use of the titles Prince of Bourbon, Prince of Parma, Prince of Bourbon-Parma, or Prince of Bourbon of Parma. Or even for the style of HRH used by this house. However, the stylistically neatest, cleanest and previously used form is "of Bourbon, Prince/Princess of Parma". There is no ambiguity or confustion with this title. Dukes of Parma (indeed, it is seen on some sarcophagi) used the form "X of Bourbon, Duke of Parma" or just "X, Duke of Parma". The agnates of the house have been and can be treated the same way. The fact that English is a different language is no excuse to disregard the instances of "von Bourbon von Parma"/"von Bourbon, Prinz/Prinzessin von Parma" or "de Bourbon de Parme"/"de Bourbon, prince/princess de Parme" or "di Borbone di Parma"/"di Borbone, Principe/Principessa di Parma". In fact, German, more than English, is a language quick to adopt hyphens. Charles 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

From Third Opinion

Google suggests "Princess of Bourbon-Parma" is more commonly used, and what I get from the above discussion is that the royal family refers to itself similarly (correct me if I'm wrong), so I would go with that version for the time being. However, this needs the eyes of an expert in royal nomenclature, especially because some sources are non-English and may be translated improperly. Fagstein 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue come from, I think, the perception that WP standards for naming articles applies absolutely to the content within the articles themselves. The standards favour the use of "Bourbon-Parma" for the title of the article, but there are countless exampls across Wikipedia where the proper forms are used within the article thereafter. Such an example is Elisabeth of Bavaria who was born Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria. Or one could look at the Kings in Prussia, who are all listed as "of Prussia". Royal nomenclature is explicit that the forms of Bourbon of Parma and of Bourbon, Prince(ss) of Parma are correct for the purposes of more official styling. Charles 00:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I remain completely bewildered as to the grounds on which you are relying for the statement above. What relevant, authoritative sources say "of Bourbon of Parma" is the "proper" form in English? And which relevant, authoritative sources say "of Bourbon, Prince(ss) of Parma" is "correct for the purposes of more official styling" for a member of this family born 30+ years after it ceased to rule Parma? From your sincere effort to explain your position in reply to the Third Opinion, I see that to you this is an obvious, perhaps even a self-evident fact, but I confess I understand less now than I did before. I suppose the next step during our truce is to submit a Request for Comment. Lethiere 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen an English source which uses "of Bourbon, of Parma" or any variant of it. Wikipedia should not be used to change English usage to that of French, Italian, or German (even if their usage were clear).

The following sources use Bourbon-Parma (and I will note exceptions if I find any);

  • Biographical Dictionary of World War I' by Herwig and Heyman. (1982) ISBN 0313213569
  • Titled Nobility of Europe by Melville Amadeus Henry Douglas Heddle de la Caillemotte de Massue de Ruvigny, marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval (1914)
    • Note that this is multilingual, and the Italian translation is Borbone-Parma. Her father is of course Duke of Parma.
  • Britannica online (under Charles (I)).[1]

As for non-English sources:

  • Meyers Enkyklopädische Lexikon (1971)
  • Der Neue Brockhaus (1985)

Not that this matters; even if Gotha were supported by every non-English source, that would not determine English usage.

More can follow; but really, Charles, it's time to name a reliable, secondary, English source. Septentrionalis 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The declaration of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg with regard to the use of the titles uses the form "of Bourbon of Parma". The official genealogy for the House of Austria (1918) makes reference to Elias von Bourbon, Prinz von Parma (not English, but note the use of a comma). This is from Zita's era. That information could be derived from earlier documents in Italian referring to Don(na) X di Borbone, (title) di Parme). Again, note the comma. Bourbon-Parma is an informal treatment which may be used for the title. The article, like so many others, may use the other form, which is correct. Zita was a Princess of Parma who was a member of the House of Bourbon. People searching for her will find her at Zita of Bourbon-Parma and learn that she was HRH Zita of Bourbon, Princess of Parma. Simple as that. Charles 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Where is the declaration of the Grand Duke to be found?
  • Ruvigny is a contemporary source, and in English. He writes H.R.H. Prince Elie of Bourbon-Parma and translates S.A.R. Principe Elia di Borbone-Parma. I really don't see why you find Bourbon-Parma any more problematic than Brunswick-Lüneburg, or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Septentrionalis 19:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Bourbon-Parma isn't a problem, it just isn't correct (as S-C-G isn't either). Brunswick-Lüneburg is a sloppy half-translation where Brunswick is used instead of Braunschweig, but Lunenburg (a legitimate and existing exonym) isn't used for Lüneburg. The Marquis de Ruvigny may have published one thing; at the same time the House of Austria's official genealogy states another. I am biased towards Bourbon, ... of Parma (because it is the most accurate one could get) but I would otherwise take the word of the then reigning House of Austria (imperial and royal) on what a royal is called. The House of Austria would hardly strive only for informalities and short forms. Bourbon-Parma is merely an informal designation. The declaration concerns Grand Duke Jean's renounciation of membership/titles of the house of Bourbon (Parma line). It was in light of Carlos Hugo of Bourbon, Duke of Parma, refusing to accept one of the marriages in the Luxembourg family as dynastic. I don't have the date on hand. Charles 20:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I may be being unclear. I'm not asking what the declaration is. Where did you find it? In what printed, or on-line, source can it be read and verified? Septentrionalis 20:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I found the declaration online a few years ago, I believe it was on a Luxembourg government website, if not, on a royal website. I remembered the specific detail because I was unsure of the exact same thing we are discussing now. I am still trying to find a date so I can get more information on the actual declaration itself, so that it may be viewed in its entirety again. Charles 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Charles is correct that the government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg almost always uses in French-language publications "de Bourbon de Parme" (without the comma, however); e.g. [2] However, when these publications are translated into English by the government of Luxembourg then they almost always use "of Bourbon-Parma"; e.g. [3]. The French-language usage really isn't relevant. The Italian form of the title should be in the first paragraph (not the German as at present) - but even here "di Borbone Parma" is much much more common than "di Borbone di Parma". It is also what is used by the Duke of Parma himself on his official website [4]. Princes are not always accurate about their own titles, but surely this counts for something! Noel S McFerran 12:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can state that they are not accurate but it counts for something, what is accurate then? The article titles are generally fine for shorter forms (of Greece, of the United Kingdom, etc) but the articles present the fuller form (of the Hellenes, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, etc). Charles 13:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that the Duke of Parma is wrong (I said that princes are wrong on occasion). The Italian language form of the name used by the Duke of Parma himself (Zita's nephew) is "di Borbone Parma". The standard English language form of the name (used by the only reigning branch of this family, in Luxembourg) is "of Bourbon-Parma". I see no reason to translate the standard French language form of the name "de Bourbon de Parme" into English as "of Bourbon of Parma" (with or without a comma). Noel S McFerran 02:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is another case in which English idiom differs from a foreign language. The two des in de Bourbon de Parme are distinct senses and rightly translated differently into English;

  • the first de is the same usage as duc de Bourgogne, translated Duke of Burgundy.
  • the second has the same force as crêpe de Chine, which it would be artificial to translate with an of; the natural translation is "Chinese crape".
    • "of the Parma" [or Parmese] "Bourbons" is idiomatic but informal.
    • "of Bourbon-Parma" is correct formal English usage; which is why it is invariable in the sources. Septentrionalis 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Artificial to translate as 'of', even though members of the family have been described as princes and princesses of Parma in contemporary documents? Bourbon-Parma is not correct formal usage. It is informal usage. The instance of de Bourbon de Parme itself is elaboration on the status of the House of Parma as members of the House of Bourbon. It is simply a matter of a family name nested between forename and a territorial designation. Charles 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is artificial to translate crêpe de Chine as "crape of China". Please read what is written.
  • Please supply a reliable, secondary, English source which speaks of "princess of Parma". Septentrionalis 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times circa the wedding of Zita and early widowhood uses Zita of Parma (Oct 22, 1911 pg 15; June 29, 1914 pg 1; June 29, 1914 pg 2; June 30, 1914 pg 2; Feb 9, 1915 pg 3; Nov 26, 1916 pg 1; Jan 11, 1925 pg SM4; Sept 20, 1925 pg BR1) Charles 13:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on that. Septentrionalis 21:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
None of these half-dozen use "Zita, Princess of Parma" Most say "Princess Zita of Parma"; one says "Archduchess Zita of Parma"; one (an alleged spy's memoirs) uses "Zita of Parma" with no title. They are interspersed with more numerous articles using "Zita di [or di] Bourbon-Parma. The NYT uses "Princess of Parma" only twice: once of Zita (12 July 1918; p.2), once of her mother. (11 August 1919, p. 3). For the distinction, consider the Empress Frederick. It would have been defensible to call her "Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom"; "Victoria, Princess of the United Kingdom" would be asserting a non-existent title. Septentrionalis 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see (finally) some actual evidence for the usage "Prince/ss X of Parma". On the other hand a search of the New York Times (1851-2003) finds 270 occasions of the phrase "of Bourbon-Parma". I have not looked through all of these, but about half seem to be the phrase "Prince/ss X of Bourbon-Parma". Two issues:
1. The reliability of newspapers (even the NYT) as "scholarly sources" is very haphazard. I would suggest that it is more appropriate to look at scholarly monographs (e.g. biographies and histories). If one were to rely on the NYT to determine the titles of princes, one would come to some very peculiar conclusions.
2. I still have not seen any proof for the assertion that "Prince/ss of Parma" (or Prince of Bourbon of Parma) is somehow more official and correct than "Prince/ss of Bourbon-Parma". In what scholarly work does it say this? Noel S McFerran 12:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that there is usage for the form and that in more formal settings, members of the house were describeds as Don/Donna X di Borbone, Principe/Principessa di Parma. With these two together, it is valid and evident that X of Bourbon, Prince/Princess of Parma is indeed aa form that was used, whether it was in official handbooks issued by the House of Austria or by papers in the Italian usage. The fact that there is more than one usage in German, French and Italian (one with a hypen, others without) lends to a situation in which there is, and with reason, more than one form in English. It has been asserted, time and time again, that Bourbon-Parma as an invention postdates the use of Parma. It is used as shorthand to describe a member of the house. That may be necessary in the title, but not in the article. Charles 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a fine assertion. The way to persuade the rest of us is to present a source that says so. Septentrionalis 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Just to be clear (although I don't doubt that Septentrionalis is already clear on this), I am not interested in a cite that validates "It has been asserted, time and time again, that Bourbon-Parma as an invention postdates the use of Parma." I conceded that point long ago in this discussion, and it is not at issue since I suggested, as a compromise, that members of this dynasty born before 1860 may be referred to as "Prince(ss) of Parma" in WP articles.
  2. What needs to be sourced is the insistence that "of Bourbon-Parma" is an exclusively "shorthand" or informal usage that deserves to be balanced off by the use of "Prince(ss) of Parma". This allegation ("in more formal settings, members of the house were described as Don/Donna X di Borbone, Principe/Principessa di Parma") amounts to a claim that the pre-deposition title is somehow inherently more "correct" than the post-monarchy title, and should therefore be used in the article (and, apparently, in the many other WP articles where the page-name or internal mentions of royals are being methodically altered so as to be indistinguishable from the titles they bore while their dynasty reigned). Of course, many royals are currently known by their dynasty's pre-deposition title (and should continue to be so -- in compliance with WP conventions), but this family isn't one of them, and that fact is not merely being ignored in WP, but systematically hunted down and reverted.
  3. New York Times references might be authoritative here were it not for the fact that there are plenty of better sources that provide the title of cadets of this family with conjoined surname preceded by "Prince(ss) X" and, in English, the single particle "of". These sources are more authoritative because they are scholarly and/or reputable on dynastic titulature, e.g. Ruvigny's Titled Nobility of Europe; the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, "Bulgaria" article; Herwig's Biographical Dictionary of World War I; Meyers' Enkyklopädische Lexikon; Der Neue Brockhaus (1985); Almanach de Gotha (1908 {p.25} & 1944 {p.29} versions; 1944 being the last year the original Gotha was published); Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Furstliche Hauser (1991, "Bourbon" article and 2001, "Österreich" aricle); L'Allemagne Dynastique (Tome V); Burke's Guide to the Royal Family (1972 p.218) in English.
  4. As for the citations you do give, Charles: Your L.A. Times cites have been dealt with by Septentrionalis and McFerran, who show them to be so vastly outnumbered by the "of Bourbon-Parma" references (270 to 8) as to fall within a margin for reasonable journalistic error; Your Luxembourg website reference is either non-existent or outdated, since the current website does not use "Prince(ss) of Parma" in any language but does use "Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" which, as McFerran has noted, is invariably translated into English as "of Bourbon(-)Parma"; your attribution for the Almanach de Gotha of 1901 is simply inaccurate, as I am looking at it right now: the "Ligne ducale de Parme" article is found on page 24, and although it gives the head of the family as "Robert-Charles-Louis-Marie de Bourbon, Infant d'Espagne, Duc de Parme, Plaisance, etc." it unequivocally adds "Les cadets portent le titre de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme avec la qualification d'Alt. Roy. (italics theirs). You also stated that the 1910 Gotha supports your position, yet Parma's article is found therein on page 25 -- once again I am looking at it as I type -- and it uses the exact same language as I previously reported for 1901 and 1944, except that in the latter the words between "Parme," and "Alt.Roy." -- "avec la qualification d'" -- are omitted. No version of the 20th century Gotha uses the locution "prince(ss) of Parma" in any language. That leaves only your reference to the Austrian court. You state that the 1907 Austrian State Handbook supports your position. Exact wording and page, please?
  5. Even if there are occasional references in French, Italian or German to the "prince(ss) of Parma" version you insist be included (and I can readily imagine that such exist, as I might even use them for the sake of variation in informal usage -- à la "Princess Diana"), they cannot stand in light of the fact that 1. on the current websites of the Duke of Parma and 2. the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, 3. in a 1989 lawsuit in French court by Prince Sixte-Henri, and 4. in the 15 May 1996 incorporation of the titles of the children of the present Duke of Parma (by Princess Irene of Orange-Nassau) into the hereditary nobility of the Netherlands, this family's titles are never presented in your favored form, i.e. "prince(ss) of Parma" in any language. Nor do they appear in the dynastic websites, legal actions, or elsewhere in any language as "Prince(ss) (X) of Bourbon of Parma". Thus, these forms even if once used have become obsolete. They cannot be documented as currently correct for members of this family (Empress Zita died in 1989, so we're discussing a recent person and an extant family here) and, their documentation having been successfully challenged on this and other pages, they are subject to summary deletion from use in WP.
  6. Again, in a spirit of compromise, why not add the "double de" version in Italian or French? Nor do I raise any objection to a version (English or not) "prince(ss) of Parma" so long as this title is qualified with "formerly" or "previously" or some other term which indicates that style has not been borne by family members born since 1860.
  7. Charles, despite our truce, the Third Opinion, the fact that neither your fellow editors here nor the majority of cited sources are supporting your position, it appears that you are once again changing articles (Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma) referring to members of this family to reflect your preferred usage. This violates both the collegiality and the tenor of our ongoing discussion. Please stop. Lethiere 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't really recall entering into a truce with anyone, but whatever. The fact of the matter is that you said that "of Parma" cannot be shown in English sources. It is used. The informal form is used in the same sense that Constantine II is referred to as a king of Greece. Constantine's article goes to say that he is King of the Hellenes. Although Bourbon-Parma is an informal usage that is old, it does not eradicate the form used in practice that fits royal nomenclature. I am not renaming articles, I am presenting the form in which it was used as a ducal/royal title (Parma) and how it is used as a courtesy title today (Bourbon-Parma). It is undeniable that removing the form which I add is the removal of valid and correct information. Obsolete or not, they exist. I can argue that all the titles of the Hanovers are obsolete, since they only use Prinz/Prinzessin von Hannover as a surname. Does that make it true though? No. Charles 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Charles, you still haven't shown any published source which says what you are saying: that "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" is merely an informal usage, and that "of Bourbon, Prince of Parma" is the formal usage. In scholarship you can't merely assert something, you have to show evidence for what you assert. What book says that "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" is merely informal, and that "of Bourbon, Prince of Parma" is more correct? The fact that the Duke of Parma himself on his official website uses the Italian "Principe di Borbone-Parma" and that the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg when writing in English use "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" goes quite a ways to suggesting otherwise.
Even if you continue to think that you are correct, surely you can see that there are several other editors who disagree with you. There appears to me to be a consensus in favour of "Princess of Bourbon-Parma". Noel S McFerran 17:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Charles, my responses are enumerated below.
  1. "I can't really recall entering into a truce with anyone..." I initiated a truce on this page because you were not responding to my attempts to discuss the issue here, yet you and I were reverting each other's changes and headed toward a revert war. To avert that, which we have an affirmative responsibility to do, I consulted Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and invoked the Wikipedia:Third opinion. When you rejected that finding, I referred the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, where it is still in queue. I informed you in advance of my course of action, inviting you to edit the request for external assistance, and requested a truce between us while we get the help needed. In doing so, I explicitly left your last edit in place so as to demonstrate good faith. But have it your way: It is duly noted that you decline to pro-actively participate in the Wiki resolution process, and that you continue to edit articles on a matter under discussion and for which objective intervention has been requested.
  2. "The fact of the matter is that you said that 'of Parma' cannot be shown in English sources." Where did I say that? What I said was that it cannot be found in the four official sources on this family that have been cited during this discussion, i.e. not in the two websites maintained, respectively, by the Duke of Parma and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg; nor in the two legal sources referring to members of the family, i.e. Prince Sixte-Henri's lawsuit against the French legitimist claimant and the incorporation of the Duke's children into the Dutch nobility. What I said can't be found anywhere is the "of Bourbon of Parma" wording. You are probably correct, though, that it can be found somewhere. So I stand corrected by you on this point.
  3. "Although Bourbon-Parma is an informal usage that is old, it does not eradicate the form used in practice that fits royal nomenclature." You have thus far provided no objective grounds or authoritative citations in support of your allegation that "Bourbon-Parma" is an "informal" usage, although you have been repeatedly asked to do so by different editors. At this point, it can only be presumed that you have no sources to cite and that this is a personal opinion that you are insisting be treated as an objective fact. Nor have you defined "royal nomenclature", sourced its authority, nor provided authoritative sources to show that it supports your position in this matter.
  4. "I am not renaming articles, I am presenting the form in which it was used as a ducal/royal title (Parma) and how it is used as a courtesy title today (Bourbon-Parma)." I didn't say you were "renaming articles". I said "you are once again changing articles..." Your contention that "Bourbon-Parma" is only "used as a courtesy title" remains unsourced and, in view of the Luxembourg and Dutch legal actions (as invariably translated into English) inaccurate.
  5. "It is undeniable that removing the form which I add is the removal of valid and correct information. Obsolete or not, they exist." You have not proven its current validity or correctness. But in any event, its removal has not been demanded. Rather, it needs to be properly sourced, or qualified so as to indicate that it is no longer used in any scholarly or official context as the proper title. Your contention that "Prince(ss) of Parma" still exists as a title remains for you to prove.
  6. Although you have refused to acknowledge three compromise proposals for these articles thus far (1. Referral to pre-1860 dynasts as "Prince(ss) of Parma", 2. Referral to "of Bourbon of Parma" in Italian, French or German, 3. Referral to "Prince(ss) of Parma" with a qualification indicating that this is an obsolete usage), I am still going to suggest a fourth: It is now pretty obvious (from this discussion and other similar ones in which objections have been raised to your edits) that the true source for your position, on this dynasty and others, is your preference for "...the stylistically neatest, cleanest and previously used form..." So why not meet us at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), honestly state your case that the aesthetic of historical dynastic names and titles deserves to be preserved in Wiki articles, and propose some clear, practical rules of thumb for doing so properly. I, for one, would be far more sympathetic to this approach (which I've suggested to you before) than to a systematic attempt to gradually impose your aesthetics on articles -- alternately citing and ignoring Wiki conventions according to whether they promote or deprecate your preferences. Lethiere 22:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Old, and perhaps four years too late: [5]. Zita signs as "Zita de Bourbon, Princesse de Parme". Seven Letters 00:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot

The article of 12 July 1918 claims that pro-German faction at the Austrian court was attacking Zita. This seems much more interesting that the above naming dispute; can a secondary account of this be found? Septentrionalis 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs about the death of Crown Prince Rudolf

This section is not only completely unsourced, it's also quite different from what is stated in Baroness Mary Vetsera. --Brindt 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPBIO Assessment

This is good. Just shooting from the hip like this, I can only rate it as high as B, but I recommend a Wikipedia:peer review, then nominating for WP:GA, at least. The main problem I can immediately see is that it only has one source, it won't make it to Wikipedia:Featured article on that, but the quality and quantity of content is impressive. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want more specific help, try asking User:DrKiernan, he has written a large number of Featured articles about royalty. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't expect Wikipedia:Featured article exactly because of the 'one source' thing (sources on Zita don't seem to be exactly common, unlike say Franz Joseph I of Austria). I'll submit it off to peer review, though I'm hoping User:DrKiernan does more than the semi-auto javascript review he did on my request for Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor.Lec CRP1 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


I made many changes to the article per WP:MOS. Grammar and spelling was an issues in places, as well as the use and placement of punctuation, or lack thereof. Dashes should be in accordance with WP:DASH, refs should be placed directly after punctuation with no space before and no punctuation after, see WP:CITE.

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. For the length of the article, there should be at least three paragraphs for the lead.
    • Her full name should also appear in the lead (I do believe), although, considering the length, I would avoid the optional embolding.
      • Done - added basic summary about Zita's life.--Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The article could use some additional wikification. I did some, but I still feel that certain terms could be wikified for context.
    • Done - wikified as much as I thought sensible --Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Titles, such as emperor, should only be capitalized unless followed by a name.
    • Done --Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a consistency with the use (or not) of the serial comma.
    • Done Been through every damn comma in the article and I think it's been fixed. --Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Any images tagged as fair use need to be accompanied by fair use rationales. This is actually a quick-fail criteria, although I don't know why, because they can just be deleted. They are currently hidden, but they will be deleted in 7 days if there is no adequate fair use rationale added.
    • Done Images deleted. --Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Several of the quotes use improper grammar. Someone needs to verify these quotes to the source and ensure that it's properly quoted.
    • All the quotes from the Brook-Shepherd book are properly quoted. The rest were added by someone else. --Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • All the quotes from the books:Empress Zita ,A Heart for Europe and Imperial Twilight are properly quoted. I added them Miguelemejia 23:28, 23 July 2007
    • They also should not be italicized per WP:QUOTE, which I corrected, but those corrections were reverted.
      • Done.That was my attempt at consistency. I wasn't sure whether they should be or not--Lec CRP1
  • Ensure dates are formatted per WP:DATE. I also corrected this, but those corrections were also reverted in many instances.
    • Done --Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redlinks are appropriate as long as they are relevant to the topic (which all in this article are), and as long as they are notable within themselves to have their own article. If the latter is not the case, the wikification needs to be removed.
  • I think "old people's home" could be replaced with something more appropriate.
    • Done--Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • References also need to be consistently formatted. Use WP:CITE as a guide. Spaces, colons, periods, etc. should all be consistent in their use in the refs.
    • For those references which are exactly the same (same page of same book), name the ref.**In the case of the same ref being used multiple times with different page numbers, consider using {{rp}}.
      • I have to admit I'm utterly baffled by references, notes and the formatting and code and tags thereof. I really need help on this. --Lec CRP1
        • Done I helped with that Miguelemejia 01:50, 24 July 2007
          • Thanks. I did try and do it, but the preview came out trashed. Logic is not my strong point --Lec CRP1 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (unindent) I had almost every ref for Brooks-Shepherd formated using the {{rp}} template when my computer crashed. I could cry. I started it again and did just a few so that hopefully you all can see how it's done. A ref at only one occurrence (typically its first) is written out normally, ie. (ref name="Doe")((cite book |author=Doe, John |title=Words about Jane |etc... )){/ref}((rp|24)) Using brackets and tags, of course. Subsequently it would be (ref name="Doe"/)((rp|26)) - That's it. LaraLove 06:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've followed your example the best I can with all the references. Is this how it's supposed to be done? --Lec CRP1 06:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering I am not familiar with the topic, I don't understand all aspects of it. This is most likely the case for other readers as well.

  • What does "HI&RM" represent as a title?
    • Her/His Imperial and Royal Majesty. Wikilinked in the infobox.--Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "In the war that followed, Charles was promoted to General in the Austrian army, taking command of the XXth Corps for an offensive in the South Tyrol." - Is that supposed to read "XXth Coprs" or are the exes place holders?
    • XX is Roman Numerals meaning '20th', I changed it so people didn't get confused as you did--Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What does "had issues" mean in reference to her children?
    • It means they had children. It's standard terminology in geneology. I've changed it to 'children' to again avoid confusion --Lec CRP1 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I tell you, I would have never thought that. I'm thinking, "We all have issues. What kind of issues could this possibly be referring to?" As a mother of two, I am frequently frustrated by my children, but I'm not sure I'd refer to them as issues. Interesting to know, however, that it's standard terminology in genealogy, ha. Anyway, I'll look back over the article. LaraLove 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the issues with the article are fairly minor and can be fixed within a few days, I am putting this article on hold for no more than seven days. If you have any questions, bring them up here or on my talk page and I'll help you out. Regards, LaraLove 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, if you would rather undo a great deal of my work that I did to bring the article in accordance with the Manual of Style, which is a GA requirement, I can just fail the nomination and save everyone time and trouble. Let me know which you prefer. LaraLove 20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work. The article is now listed as a Good Article. In improving this article, you have improved Wikipedia. LaraLove 16:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zita_of_Bourbon-Parma/Archive_1&oldid=1092076832"