Talk:Simon de Montfort (disambiguation)

Does Simon I de Montfort belong as one of the entries on this disambig page? Agent 86 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English usage

This disambiguation does not agree with the information in Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and ..., Volume 5 page 44 edited by George Edward Cokayne [1] which cites authoritative studies of de Montfort family. The several books on English history published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press that I have at hand, and a mid 19th century school text published in England all agree with work just cited.

However, the present disambiguation and titling of articles it links to may agree with the nomenclature of the Simon de Montfort Society in the U.S.A.

I do not know if that makes it a matter of WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or other guideline, or if anything needs to be fixed, and if so how. I need to refer to three of the Simon's in the article about Evesham, so will follow English usage and omit links to WP articles about them. If anyone wants to put links in, after I have edited Evesham I would be grateful. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really should link to their biographical articles. For the numbered earls of Leicester, that should not be a problem. For the SdeM (1240-1271), if you do not think he is VI, you can always change the title of that article. Clearly here, Simon I de Montfort (c. 1025-1087) is not consistent with [2] --Rumping (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer may be not to use Roman numerals but dates, so that the last one will be Simon de Montfort (1240-1271). This method of dabbing should resolve the doubt. I would regard G.E.C., Complete Peerage produced in early 20th century by various editors as the most reliable source, unless this has been overtaken by more recent research. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like dates (and besides for many medieval people the dates themselves are not clear) and if you know the problem with dates, the chances are that the dab extension does not matter as you already know the biography you are looking for. I have just "solved" a very similar problem for Lord Boyd of Kilmarnock (see this footnote). The problem in the case of Lord Boyd was that it depends on distinguishing between de fact and de jure (as in times of civil conflict it can be tricky for scholars to work out when attainders were lifted) and (it seems to me) that often pre-World War II biographies were written with the nobility as the main customers, there is a tendency for them to follow however the family numbers of them and that may not be scholarly accurate. Therefore I find the best way to number them is to use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, as many (most?) notable noble British families will have at least one family member entry in that book from which one can extrapolate a number. As the ODNB is a 21st century work it will tend to use the most recent scholarly work on numbering. The key though is whatever numbering system one decides to use, if there is disagreement between the sources then pick what you think is the most reliable modern sources and footnote them. If one is going to use websites like http://www.thepeerage.com/ then only use them if they cite their sources (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) and if you can check the sources, (for example I think that Sir Robert Anstruther, 1st Baronet does not carry reliable sources as the web pages given as sources do not cite their sources). You will find many out of copyright sources used by such sites as http://www.thepeerage.com/ at http://www.archive.org and Google Books (I have been building a chaotic private library page of such sources which may short cut the search) -- PBS (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was evolving when I made this posting. The topic is completely marginal to my interests -- I noticed the error only because I was responding, reluctantly, to a request for help on the Evesham article. I have no time to make the corrections. My major concern, which completely transcends the specifics of people named Simon de Montfort, is stated at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia Epidemic error Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would always consider ODNB; but such questions as numbering are not likely to be the contributor's primary interest - especially when dealing with the thirteenth century when the modern system of numbering and precedence were anachronisms (so is Simon I, of course). I would follow Cokayne unless he (and his co-authors) have been superseded on the facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like my suggestion, how about Simon de Montfort (died 1271). The dates of birth in the medieval period are sometime problematic, but those of death less usually. The method of diambiguation by dates is used at a later period for example Thomas Foley, as there are too many people for any other method to be feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy

I noticed that this article has had the disputed accuracy tag since January of 2011. Can we remove this? Also, to which of the links does this tag refer? Fred.Pendleton (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed. It seems to have derived from the discussion above this one, which ended incinclusively long ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon de Montfort → Simon de Montfort (disambiguation) – The primary topic for this title is Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester. "Simon de Montfort" should therefore be a redirect to that page, with the disambiguation page differentiated by "(diambiguation)" in the usual way. LookLook36 (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not overly familiar with the historical figures, a pageview analysis does support the nom. PC78 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assertion looks correct. Sam Sailor 10:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The 5th earl is also very famous. Srnec (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbitrary argument.
  Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester has 168,062 pageviews with a monthly average of 3,576.
  Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester has 634,518 pageviews with a monthly average of 13,500. Sam Sailor 12:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:4C90:97EA:8FB3:F547 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Because? Sam Sailor 12:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When people refer to Simon de Montfort without any further qualifier or context it's invariably the 6th Earl they're referring to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per supporters - it doesn't help that there are alternative numberings, so some views may not get to the right articles first time. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

tree

This sort of graphic representation is always a welcome addition. Many thanks to the creator(s) PurpleChez (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]