Talk:Baronage of Scotland

Table cleanup due to lacking WP:V in a BLP article

I'm making a new topic as I start cleaning up the table. As per my comments elsewhere on this page, I note that:

• Since the list contains living people, it has to adhere to WP:BLP standards, as tagged on this talk page. That doesn't mean individuals need to be notable, but it cannot contain unverified names without sources.
• The most frequent source on the page is the "Roll of Barons" at roll.baronage.com. This is not an acceptable source: while the page says they work with the Scottish Barony Register, they present no evidence to that effect, and the SBR never mentions the Roll. The page lists no owner, no administrator of the Roll, and no members of its 'Governing Council'. The website has no contact information, and its domain is protected by a privacy company. "Baronage of Scotland" is not listed in the companies register, and neither is "The Baron's Charitable Trust" (which they supposedly also run) listed in the charity register. It can only be treated as a WP:SPS, which the policy states must never be used for BLP.
• That means all entries that only use the Roll as a source should be removed immediately. Adding other low-quality or self-published sources is not a solution.

That brings us to the second problem, which are "baronies" that have no article and no source, and there is no reliable source for the supposed incumbent. These could, in extremis, be completely made up. If we only look at the baronies beginning with A, there is:

• The Baron of Aden: no sources listed, supposedly infeft in 2015, supposedly held by a Alexander Russell. A Google Scholar search shows zero results for a "Baron of Aden", and a regular Google search shows some self-published sources and this list.
• The Baron of Alford: no sources listed, supposedly from the 17th century, supposedly held by a Kerry Hamer, no infeft date. Search brings up absolutely nothing of value about a "Baron of Alford", although it does bring up this list.
• The Baron of Alforshire: no sources, no infeft date, supposedly held by a Charles Cogdill. One total Google result, which is this list.
• The Baron of Anstruther: no sources, infeft supposedly in 2016, supposedly held by a Ryan Pannell. Search shows absolutely nothing of value, but at least he has an IMDb page, the only information on which is that he's supposedly the Baron of Anstruther. Oh, and this list appears as the fourth hit.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. All these entries are, to use a technical term, complete horseshit. At best, they're a good-faith attempt at completing the list from low-quality sources; at worst they were included precisely to justify these paid-for fantasy claims with a Wikipedia entry.

Since I have nothing better to do with my weekend, I will start working on this tomorrow. I'm happy to entertain counter-arguments, but they better be watertight given how absolutely abysmal the state of this list is.

Tagging @Fram, @Kellycrak88, @Charliez, since you responded to my initial query. Also tagging @Nayyn since she was in the thread above and is seemingly also trying to do some cleanup on individual pages. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s great someone has the time to review and improve this page.

I have had it on my to-do list to verify those entries missing cited sources against Debrett’s and Burke’s and, in my opinion, also the Roll. Where several of these sources match, I think it’s justified to include them, but as the article is now, many entries are missing sources entirely. Obviously, checking and adding sources for entries is preferable to just deleting everything, though it is much more time-consuming. Charliez (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Charliez. I guess WP:DEBRETTS is considered somewhat reliable (although there seem to be some doubts), and while Burke's is reliable, I don't have access to it. But as I argued above, I don't think we can really 'verify' things with the Roll at all. Can I ask what convinces you it's a reliable source, especially within a WP:BLP context?

But with anything I intend to delete, I'll do at least a quick search; I don't intend to nuke the whole thing in one go. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 11:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a subject with a limited number of reliable sources, and Debrett’s seems to me pretty solid. Also, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove entries with Burke’s cited as a source. While I can understand why you wouldn't want to go out and buy the latest edition or subscribe to their online content just to clean up this article, “free” is not a requirement for WP:RS.

I really don't have many details on the “Roll,” but having looked at the actual content (by which I specifically mean the list of barons), the ones they list as “verified” seem pretty solid and match other sources. While I have no deeper insight into their verification process, the one described seems to rely on primary sources that are definitely acceptable. I agree that we have no first-hand evidence that the process works as they describe, but then we have no evidence to the contrary either. In fact, those listed as “verified” seem to generally match Debrett’s. The site certainly does not appear to be a self-published or self-promoting website, and given that primary sources and original research are frowned upon on WP, we have to rely on acceptable standard secondary ones. My point was that, at least until we have some sort of indicator that it is not reliable, the Roll would work well in conjunction with Debrett’s and Burke’s. In fact, if the Roll does not list a baron as “verified” while one of the others does, it should certainly be an indication that further investigation might be needed.

I started a similar discussion as this, on the quality of this whole page, so I think we are pretty much aligned on the fact that it has significant scope for improvement. I just think it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of work from many different editors must necessarily have gone into this page over the years. After 2004, accurate public information about the Scottish Baronage is difficult to find, and WP could be a valuable source if done right. Charliez (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Charliez Interesting that I read on the About page of the Roll that one of the reasons it was created was to address gaps in sources like Debrett’s. It states:

“Since 2004, there has been no legal requirement to record baronies in Scotland, leading to false or questionable claimants appearing in sources like Debrett’s. We address this...”

This doesn’t disqualify Debrett’s as a source, of course, but it does explain why some editors may prefer to cross-reference baronial claims with additional tools like the Roll—which has transparent and verifiable inclusion guidelines. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply @Charliez. I think your attempt to triangulate information with Debrett's and Burke's is a solid approach. However, if the way you test the Roll's accuracy is by cross-referencing its info with Debrett's, why are we not just using Debrett's? That at least has an established track record, third-party recognition, and is listed in WP:RS.

Like I explained in my replies to Kellycrak88, the Roll is completely intransparent in who owns it, who runs it, and how the process is structured. The fact that they have a public-facing PDF with supposed criteria doesn't solve that problem. It also has no third-party recognition at all: the SBR doesn't mention it, it doesn't come up in Lord Lyon rulings, and there is no coverage in media or historical research. They may well simply be copying the Debrett's information and then add whatever they feel like—we don't know, and there's no way of finding out.

Just to be clear: I'm not trying to nuke the entire list; I understand many people must have contributed. But the quality of the information isn't there for a WP:BLP article. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I like the Roll. In the absence of an official public register, it serves a purpose, and I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt—unless there’s a clear reason not to, such as irregularities in the list. It appears to be member-owned, with new members able to sign up for ownership and governance. Most of the concerns raised seem to have already been addressed — the inclusion criteria, transparency, and update history are all publicly available.

Unless there’s consensus to remove entries, the “unverified” tags help contextualise rather than suppress information—especially where additional sources, alongside the Roll, may support inclusion of the unverified. Thesan2187 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah cool, someone else from the inofficial sandbox 'WikiProject' on Daniel Plumber's user page, which coordinates off-wiki. Not terribly surprising you would back up your fellow project member, of course.

@Thesan2187, you're making the exact same points as @Kellycrak88. This is a WP:BLP article, which doesn't allow us to give sources "the benefit of the doubt". Information about living people must pass strict WP:V standards. You're taking the website at face value without any evidence or third-party verification. Who exactly are the Roll's "members"? How do you know they own the entity? Who are the "Keepers of the Roll" who evaluate claims? Who's on the "Governing Council"? Why are there no Lord Lyon rulings mentioning the Roll, why is there no media reporting on it, and why is it not used for historical or genealogical research? Why does the Roll include "unverified" information at all? Why do you not consider "unverified" information on a list with supposedly transparent standards an irregularity? Why is it a better source than Burke's or Debrett's?

The only thing the Roll has going for it is its convenience. That's not good enough for WP:BLP. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 23:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I’d like to note clearly that these accusations about off-wiki coordination in relation to a Baronage WikiProject were already investigated last year by administrators and found to be false. Reviving accusations in the middle of a content discussion crosses the line into personal attack and is inappropriate under WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Thesan2187 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

You can perhaps understand my annoyance that another person simply makes the same points as Kellycrak did. I've already asked the same questions about the Rollthree times on this page, and I'm still waiting for good answers from you or Kellycrak. Just repeating that you like the source isn't moving the discussion forward. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be willing to give the "Roll" the benefit of the doubt. While it is true that we don't have independent verification that it adheres to its published editorial standards, this is the case for many sources accepted on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure it would be right to hold the Roll to a higher standard without some sort of evidence of the site containing incorrect data (which I don't think we have at the moment).

I do have a problem with the "unverified" entries — not on the "Roll" (it's an independent site and can list titles with such notes as it sees fit) — but on Wikipedia. From an encyclopaedia perspective, something is either proven or it isn't. While I can accept caveated entries, or articles stating things like "some researchers believe" etc, a list containing a large number of entries marked as "unverified" makes little sense. This is a list of Scottish barons, not persons who may or may not be Scottish Barons.

I may be in the minority, but I think an entry is either verified or it is not, or it is caveated in a logical way ("not listed in Debrett's" or "not listed on the Baronage Roll," etc). Perhaps it's mostly a matter of wording, but I don't think the current way of presenting the data is the best. Charliez (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Charliez, I appreciate the thoughts. You're right that we don't hold all sources to high verification standards, but it's worth remembering that this qualifies as a WP:BLP article, so it's my strong feeling that we have to.

Your second point about "unverified" entries I fully agree with. The Roll can obviously do what they want, but that doesn't mean we have to simply copy their data. I'm not comfortable with a table that presents unverified data about living people, and I think it's our duty to remove that information until we get better data or a better source. I'm happy to do that going forward, and I haven't heard a convincing argument against it from the others in this conversation. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Arcaist I've tired answered your questions where I can, based on the the info available, across your separate threads above. To clarify: the “unverified” entries were already present on the list for a long time before, often without any citation at all. In several cases, these are barons supported by other sources such as Burke’s or other references (for example paid for entry sources were disqualified previously), but not easily verified via a public register like the Roll.

My addition of the “unverified” tags was not to promote questionable entries — it was a good-faith effort to make the sourcing status more transparent, not less. This is consistent with standard editorial practice across Wikipedia: we frequently tag content with context (e.g. “citation needed” or “disputed”) rather than immediately deleting it — especially where there may be cross-source justification.

As already mentioned above, many peerage and baronetage lists on Wikipedia — including heir columns — have no inline citations at all. This page has arguably higher and stricter sourcing standards than many similar articles.

Clear fakes or unsupported claims obviously should be removed — and have been. But for others, the “unverified” tag allows editors to flag sourcing issues without deleting information that may yet be confirmed. Blanket removal, particularly in the absence of consensus, would run counter to both WP:V and WP:PRESERVE. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 I grant that you were in good faith trying to make the sourcing more transparent—as someone who's worked on some obscure topics, I know that it's not always easy to back things up. We disagree whether using the Roll so heavily has done the trick.

Like I said above, the fact that other peerage lists don't have citations doesn't override the strict standards of WP:BLP.

Most importantly, for the "unverified" Roll information, the language of BLP here is unambiguous:

• "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Highlighted in the original).
• "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

Marking the information as "unverified" is insufficient; it must be removed as per policy.

WP:Preserve does not override this: "Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Such claims should generally be removed immediately." (WP:DON'T PRESERVE)

It doesn't matter that this would make things easier for editor to source things later. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 17:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the emphasis you’re placing on WP:BLP — it’s a key policy, and I agree that we should be especially careful when living individuals are involved, even in list contexts.

That said, I do think it’s worth considering how BLP usually applies. The entries we’re discussing are name–title combinations only — no added commentary, claims, or potentially contentious detail. In that sense, they’re functionally similar to peerage and baronetage lists elsewhere, many of which also include unsourced but non-controversial entries.

My reason for adding the “unverified” tags was to highlight where information isn’t fully supported by public-facing registers — not to assert anything positive or negative about the individuals. In fact, in a few cases, the baronial status is likely verifiable through other sources such as a Burke’s book 107th edition, but just hasn’t been linked yet.

If any entry includes material that could be seen as controversial or biographical in nature, I completely agree it should be removed under BLP. But where the content is neutral, and clearly tagged as unverified, I think this strikes a balance that aligns with both WP:V and WP:PRESERVE.

Still open to suggestions on improving the structure or wording if you think there’s a clearer way to present that distinction. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

No commentary or claims are necessary. Assigning someone an unverified title is inherently contentious, and it is absolutely not non-controversial. As just one example, a title holder who finds someone else has been listed as the holder has reasonable grounds for a libel case under UK law. Similarly, if the table listed someone as a title holder who feels being associated with a newly bought title is defamatory, that would not be hard to argue. Thus the clear BLP policies.

What you intended to convey with the unverified information is immaterial, and so is whether you feel it is neutral or uncontroversial. Holding a baronial title is far from either. Again, the BLP policy does says "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 17:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly as a development: Debrett’s recently added to it's FAQ that it intends to publish a list of titles it considers fake. “Fake” is obviously much stronger language than “unverified,” but it may eventually offer another reference point when comparing entries across registers. It'll be interesting to see if any overlap emerges with currently tagged entries here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Long time lurker / first time commenter here, and just wanted to ask: In addition to Debrett's (which several editors here seem to agree is somewhat credible), what about also using the Scottish Register of Tartans for an additional measure of comfort for any baron whose title is recognised there? The Register is described thusly: "The Register is administered by the National Records of Scotland (NRS) with advice from the Court of the Lord Lyon and representatives of the Scottish tartan industry. The Keeper of the Records of Scotland and Registrar General for Scotland is also the Keeper of the Scottish Register of Tartans." Given that it was established by an act of the Scottish Parliament in 2008, and that it coordinates with Lord Lyon - and that its entries are public - I would think this would be seen as a credible source, would it not? Searching the Register for "baron of" returns a number of barons whose titles have been recognised in their registrations: Melville, Greencastle, Cartsburn, Kinross, Kirkliston, Denboig - even the same fellow listed as Anstruther from your short list of examples (though not Aden, Alford, or Alforshire). I understand that this requires a baron to have registered a tartan, and many have likely not, but I would think that if there is consensus between Debrett's, the "Roll", and the Scottish Register of Tartans, we could take at least that as very solid confirmation, could we not? Brit-o-pedia (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea @Brit-o-pedia. But I don't think it quite works for a few reasons: A) Many titleholders won't have a tartan (as you rightly point out). B) Titleholders might register a tartan but choose to omit their title, which wouldn't be negative proof. C) Nowhere on the website does it say that the Keeper verifies all personal details, only that there must be a link between the person applying and the tartan. D) It's not specified what the "advice of the Lord Lyon" looks like, and the underlying Act doesn't mention this as necessary. Presumably they don't verify each bit of information with the Lord Lyon hundreds of times a year. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 19:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Arcaist Note regarding your recent edits to the page. No consensus was reached for mass removals and multiple editors raised concerns about disqualifying sources. WP:BLP does not require the immediate deletion of all unsourced neutral entries, especially in curated list contexts, unless they are contentious or potentially damaging. If there's still concern, let's continue the discussion here — but mass removals without consensus should be reverted until resolved — per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISPUTED, and WP:PRESERVE Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Nope, I've explained this to you several times now, @Kellycrak88. The "mass removal" is of information which even the Roll classifies as unverified. I've already compromised in this discussion by not just deleting everything based on the fundamentally intransparent Roll. However, if something is not even verified by the Roll, it needs to go. Holding a supposed and possibly bought title is absolutely contentious, and it doesn't matter whether you consider this information as positive or negative. I'm not quoting the policies again. This isn't a question of WP:Preserve or WP:Consensus. You can't just hold the page hostage (WP:OWN) because you're reading the relevant policy incorrectly.

If you revert my removal of the unverified Roll information again, I will file an immediate ANI. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 22:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Arcaist I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but you’re still misapplying WP:BLP. The policy is clear that contentious unsourced material must be removed — not any unsourced material. A name–title combination with no additional claim is not inherently contentious, and “unverified” is not the same as “false” or “defamatory.”

You are also asserting there is no consensus when multiple editors have disagreed with you, and discussion remains ongoing. WP:CONSENSUS requires that we continue that conversation — not push changes through force.

To be clear: I am not “owning” the page. I’ve repeatedly invited further input and compromise on the Talk page and flagged entries as unverified to promote transparency. If you feel there’s a behavioural issue, you’re of course free to raise it through proper channels. But reverting without consensus, while threatening others with ANI, isn’t the right way forward.

Let’s resolve this the right way — through discussion, not repetition or escalation. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88: "The policy is clear that contentious unsourced material must be removed — not any unsourced material. A name–title combination with no additional claim is not inherently contentious, and “unverified” is not the same as “false” or “defamatory.”"

• WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
• WP:BLPSOURCE: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation".
• WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."
• WP:STATUSQUO: "Living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious."
• WP:DON'T PRESERVE: "Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Such claims should generally be removed immediately."

"You are also asserting there is no consensus when multiple editors have disagreed with you, and discussion remains ongoing. WP:CONSENSUS requires that we continue that conversation — not push changes through force."

• WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
• WP:NOCONSENSUS: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: Living people. In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it."

And regarding consensus more generally, let's tally this:

• @Fram has raised fundamental questions about data quality and presentation.
• @Charliez has agreed that unverified Roll information is problematic.
• @Thesan2187 has said that they are okay with unverified information "where additional sources, alongside the Roll, may support inclusion". I note that the table currently has no such sources after you removed all instances of Burke's and Debrett's.
• @Nayyn asked about data sources. Unsure how they feel about unverified information (from their recent edits and AfDs it's hard to see how they would support its inclusion, but I won't presume their opinion).
• You have consistently argued for the inclusion of unverified information.
• I have consistently argued against it.

I'm happy for the others on the page to chip in further. I suggest the BLP Noticeboard if we can't get this resolved here. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Archaist(and apologies I forgot to tag you in my question below), is there a reason Debrett's was removed? I would have thought that would be considered a credible source, no? Brit-o-pedia (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting you @Brit-o-pedia, this talkpage is getting quite unwieldy.

You'd have to ask @Kellycrak88 about why Debrett's was removed, as they made that decision a few weeks ago. Debrett's, the Scottish Barony Register, and Burke's were the most frequent sources until April 18, when they disappeared in one mass edit (diff) by Kellycrak88 with the edit summary "removed fake and unverifable citations". The Baronage Roll has since basically been the table's only source. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@ArcaistI don't get that. Debrett's (as far as I know) has been a reliable source of knowledge on everything from etiquette to styles of address and titles for the past age. Not sure why it would be removed; doesn't it add to the quality of the certification, rather than detract from it? I would think citing both it and the Roll would be beneficial. Why not leave both? Burke's is pay-to-play now so I get that, but Debrett's? @Kellycrak88can you help me better understand here? Why should the Roll's verification be allowed, and Debrett's not? Brit-o-pedia (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Brit-o-pedia—happy to clarify.

The removal of certain sources followed previous consensus on this Talk page, where editors raised valid concerns over reliability and transparency.

As @Charliez proposed in April:

“The Roll appears to be the only source with both clear criteria for inclusion and transparent public verification policies… In my opinion, no holder should be listed here as a baron unless they appear on the Roll, except where other highly reliable sources are cited... For the purposes of an encyclopaedia, verifiable and independent information is essential.”

To summarise previous chats:

• SBR is a private register with no public record, it cannot be verified by editors or readers, also doesn't list all baronies it's an optional register.

• BURKE'S PEERAGE, while reputable, is commercial, behind a paywall, and in recent years has accepted entries that are pay-to-play, also limited amount of barons listed.

• DEBRETT'S is also commercial and does not publish public inclusion criteria. The Roll's own About page states that it was created partly in response to questionable entries in Debrett’s, noting the lack of editorial transparency and the presence of known fakes.

The intention behind prioritising the Roll wasn’t to claim it is flawless — but rather that it’s the only publicly viewable, non-commercial source with visible inclusion standards, timestamps, and verification status. What makes it unique is that it's a dedicated baronage source aiming to list all known titles, including the unverified.

That said, I have no objection in principle to including barons cited in Burke’s or Debrett’s, or other sources, if there is consensus! The earlier cleanup aimed to prevent unverified or circular entries, not to disallow legitimate citations altogether.

Open to discussing how best to present a mix of sources while keeping quality and transparency high. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 The "consensus" you're holding up in response to @Brit-o-pedia was one conversation between @Charliez and yourself. Charliez also only initiated that conversation on April 19, the day after you had removed Burke's, Debrett's, and the SBR, and you only replied to Charliez on April 21. It's silly to argue those edits were made as a result of a supposed consensus.

Substantially, if the information on Burke's, Debrett's, and SBR is either non-public or problematic, then it shouldn't be included, plain and simple. If that means fewer supposed barons, so what? That's the entire point of WP:V.

You still have presented no proof—as I've said many times in this discussion—that the Roll is non-commercial, that it upholds its supposed inclusion standards, and how it "verifies" things. The Roll is not "authoritative" just because it says so; it would be if other independent sources assign it that status. And what do we find? Zero mentions in Lord Lyon decisions, zero mentions by the SBR, zero mentions online in general—besides this Wikipedia article of course. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 14:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 Thank you for replying to me. I am not sure I follow the logic here though (and forgive me; I can see passions are high, and I am not trying to "stir the pot" so-to-speak).

My understanding is that all claims made which support decisions Wikipedia editors make must be provable. So for example, if you want to claim that Debrett's or Burke's are no longer reliable sources (despite having been considered so for 256 and 199 years, respectively), I presume you would need to show where that position has been publicly presented and generally proven. Say, for example, some newspaper article which exposed that either publication's verification of titles was questionable, or that either had been caught in a pay-to-play scheme - but I find no evidence of either. Like you, I have heard the pay-to-play rumour with respect to Burke's (though not Debrett's), but hearing a rumour and that being enough to remove them as a reference after almost 200 years of being THE definitive reference, I just can't get to. If you have publicly accessible proof that the integrity of either is now in question, please share it, and I'll be happy to put my concerns about their removal to bed. I would presume though if there were such evidence, you'd have shared it, and Google doesn't lead me any more reliably to that conclusion.

I don't want to come off as being against the "new kid in town" - the "Roll", as it's being referred to - but you can't argue this isn't a very weird turn of events (and maybe it seems less so to you, who have been active in this discussion far more than I have been, and obviously for much longer). Let's track it:

• While the SBR, Registry of Scots Nobility, Debrett's, and Burke's have been around for a dog's age, this new website appears and presents itself as the authoritative roll of the Scottish baronage. Okay, fine, welcome to the party. If it ended there, I seriously doubt there would be all this discussion and drama - except it didn't end there...
• Someone here - and I have not followed in meticulous detail, so please forgive me if I get this wrong but it looks like @Kellycrak88 it was you, then removed all references to anything but the Roll. Why? If this was done and in support of this decision there were references to actual proof that the longstanding Old Guard of title validation's integrity had been compromised, then great, I am all for that - but as I said above, I can't find that proof. I would think that the Roll would have been added perhaps as a reference where (again, perhaps) none existed for this title holder or that. "More", as it were, not "the only".
• You say above in answering me that Burke's "in recent years has accepted entries that are pay-to-play" - do you have proof? Please understand, I am not trying to unduly challenge you, I really would love to read up on this fact if it is indeed a fact - but if it is not, than I presume Wikipedia doesn't let us just pretend it is. Same goes for Debrett's; you reference "questionable entries in Debrett’s, noting the lack of editorial transparency and the presence of known fakes" - which questionable entries? Which titles listed are "known fakes"? Again, I would love to read up on this, as it's actually a pretty big deal when a firm like Debrett's goes off the rails and quality control implodes. Where have you seen this proven?
• All of the defence of the Roll I have seen here seems to be focused on why it should be trusted as the sole arbiter of title verification, rather than just supporting its inclusion as a complementary source. Why is that not enough? Why is this new, amateurishly-built (I'm sorry, but have you tried it from an iPhone?), completely anonymous site using (as @Nayyn rightly observes) bad AI art suddenly being considered as the one true fundamental source of truth? I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way (or maybe here it does, in alignment with the world of disinformation in which we all now live). Someone can't just make up a site and say, "We are the sole source of truth, and better than anyone else out there because we say so, and you need to take our word for it", and have some serious Wikipedia editors like you have here respond with, "Oh, okay, that sounds reasonable; let's do that!" I mean, can they?
• Now there appears to be quite the scrap going on here, not because editors are trying to tear down a useful reference page dedicated to the Scottish baronage, and a few valiant editors are trying to stop that, but because it seems there's an attempt to (my opinion alone here) legitimise the Roll by using Wikipedia to do so. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? Isn't the goal supposed to be legitimising information contained on Wikipedia by linking that information to (preferably) multiple external sources of truth? Again, if I take a step back here having read the comments and reviewed (tried) the edit history, I keep coming back to the same question: who or what has the most to gain here? The answer is, the Roll. Not the baronage, not a bunch of bought or inherited feudal title holders, but the new website that appeared out of nowhere and wants to be the sole source of truth.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but here's why this concerns me:

As @Archaist has previously noted, the fact that this site says that it's non-commercial doesn't prove that it is in fact non-commercial (forgive me; I haven't checked that for myself), and while that may be the case now, what about later? What happens after it's supplanted the alternate sources of verification? What happens when it's the only voice that matters? Debrett's is gone, Burke's is gone - and we here will have been complicit in the removal of hundreds of years of credibility by removing their public-facing references in favour of this one, lone source; what then? What if it stops being non-commercial, and the only way you get your title listed as "Authenticated" is that you pay for it. What if you want a made-up title and you can pay to have that included too? I am not denigrating the Roll and I do not mean to suggest that this is what's going to happen - but it could, and we'd have assisted in that.

The safest road I see is more, not less. I am not a fan of Old Guard ownership of information, and I welcome the Roll and whatever new information it can, and wants, to bring. But I think that if we want to use it here as a source of verification, then it should be in addition to at least Debrett's (their list is public), as well as any other publicly-facing acceptable sources of verification that exist. Some barons will have just one citation, and some might have three or four. Isn't that good? Isn't that the goal? I just don't understand why it should be one.

In conclusion, I am not trying to make matters worse. What I see as the new voice looking in is a strange reimagining of a subject where one source of potential truth is being used to supplant all others, and that just seems wrong to me. I see a lot of questions asked but not answered, and I don't understand that either. I see references to consensus, and then either no actual consensus or two editors in a sea of a half dozen agreeing with each other - and that also just seems wrong. And lastly, I don't understand (unless I consider Occam's razor, which takes me down a road I think some others here have already found themselves going down) what possible good comes from the "less not more" approach of just the Roll, rather than adding the Roll to other reputable sources of "truth"? Can we not just start there?

Especially given the times we live in, I would think that more sources are better, and not the opposite...

Thank you all for indulging me. Brit-o-pedia (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, @Brit-o-pedia, you explained that much more patiently than I have. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Brit-o-pedia — genuinely appreciate the balanced and thoughtful perspective.

Personally, I’m not opposed to citing Burke’s, Debrett’s, or RSN — and would support those sources (with consensus!). All of these sources have faced criticism and negative consensus in previous threads, in those criticisms I've consistently found The Roll having the most defensible attributes, I became convinced when other editors supported it, hence where we are. The intention behind the earlier cleanup was not to “ban” those sources, but to ensure consistent editorial standards where possible and defend the baronage from deletion. However, in recent weeks, baronage-related content across Wikipedia has come under sustained attack —three baron pages were deleted in the last days, several more are facing nominations for deletions. Not to mention the removal of numerous title holders across articles. All deletion nominations proposed/supported by @Arcaist @Nayyn where these editors could have improved these articles instead. I remain a neutral but pro-baronage editor and would be happy to revisit the sourcing discussion constructively.

An interesting development, as another user noted there is a new Governing Council section on the Roll’s site, some highlights:

“It is FREE for life to verify a pledged Roll entry”

“An honourable body owned by the members as a not-for-profit”

“The Baronage of Scotland Association (membership body), The Roll (non-membership title record) and the Scottish Charity in liaison with all baronage stakeholders (being set up) are THREE separate entities.”

“We, as custodians of The Roll, do not wish to own or control this entity, we plan to eventually transfer its oversight to government supervisors to ensure proper checks and balances into the future (once agreed with officials).”

"MOUs signed with baronage stakeholder organisations, with alignment and advisory on The Roll, to be announced in press releases and press events in September 2025."

It states membership is optional and includes ownership and vote, not all Roll entries are members and members include non-barons -- and most surprisingly helping address @Arcaist’s consistently raised concern:

“The elected Governing Council and Chancellor for biannual term will be voted in at September Edinburgh members meeting; interim leader is hereditary peer The Rt Hon The Lord Teynham."

I'll respond more at the Rfc — so as not to split the discussion — but again, thank you for engaging with genuine fairness.

In good faith, your opinion on whether The Roll should be allowed on Wikipedia — or instead degraded and blocked as proposed by @Arcaist on the Rfc admin board — would be helpful for the long-term future of the baronage project. Kellycrak88 (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the addition of B), C), and D; hadn't considered some of those points, which are all very good. If I can beg the answer to a question (because I really have no idea) and should you find the time to answer: can editor knowledge be used to support a point without it being public? For example (and acknowledging that this doesn't remotely solve the problems here you've raised) if I email the Tartan Register and ask them what Lord Lyon's due diligence process is, and they confirm it's robust, that's not good enough for Wikipedia; I need to provide publicly accessible proof of that. So is there any value to asking for that type of information, and if yes, how is that information then made citable? Appreciate any guidance (not just for this; it's a question I've had for ages). Brit-o-pedia (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's a great question, I'm always tempted by that as well. I'd say generally speaking, this falls under WP:NOR as it would constitute original research for which no reliable, published source exists. Even if you were convined of the accuracy of the information, you wouldn't be able to provide a citation for it (since the email wouldn't count as published info).

I actually emailed with Debrett's this week to ask about the provenance of the information on their website (and did get an interesting reply), but that's purely for my own benefit. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Archaist Understood; it's a bit of a quandary with no real way around, unless you could convince the party in question to release some sort of statement you could point back to. Thanks for taking the time to answer! Brit-o-pedia (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Note for visibility: I've just seen that @Arcaist initiated an RFC at the Admin Noticeboard two days ago to discredit and block the Roll as a source on WP, but didn’t notify editors here. Given the extensive prior discussion and the consensus around limited inclusion with tags, this should be considered by anyone wishing to participate:

🔗 RFC: Reliability of the Baronage Roll

As context, this follows a sustained pattern of edits aimed at undermining the baronage content on Wikipedia — including removal of heirs, title holders, and attacking baronage sources such as Burke’s and the Registry of Scots Nobility. The Roll is now the latest target. The concern is that if this succeeds, even baron names may be deleted on notability grounds, and the page reverted to earlier wording that denied these were titles of nobility — a position which we widely contested last year and revised through consensus. Regardless of position, this should be evaluated through open discussion, not unilateral removal. @Brit-o-pedia @Charliez @Thesan2187 Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been transparent about the point of the RfC: "I have concerns about the Roll as a source. This has been discussed extensively on the talk page without a clear resolution; I would appreciate community input." (my emphasis) The point is to get others besides the small group on this talk page to give the source a reality check.

I also find your complaint more than ironic: it was you who unilaterally decided some weeks ago that all mentions of Burke's and the Scottish Barony Register should be deleted from the table and replaced by the Roll—a brand new source which you somehow discovered and pushed heavily despite the fact that no other sources outside of Wikipedia use or mention it (feel free to point me to independent sources who confirm this is an "authoritative" source, e.g. Lord Lyon decisions). I note that you also mention the "Registry of Scots Nobility", yet another unaccountable source who publishes unverified information.

The problem with this page is not "baronage content on Wikipedia". The problem is that it's been seemingly decided (by you and/or others) that the availability of information trumps the quality of information. If there is good, verifiable information about a baronage—old or newly created/transfered—available in public sources, then it should absolutely be a part of the page. If that information is not verifiable, or if it is not public, then—well, tough luck. It doesn't belong here.

By the way, since you're replying to other things: it would be great if you replied to me extremely specific list of relevant policies further up. I note that this further increases the amount of time that contentious information about living people is available in this list, something that goes directly against WP:BLP. I also note that "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material", which is you, since you have asserted that the information contained is well-sourced, uncontroversial, not contentious, and neutral, and reverted my attempts at removing it. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 no one is trying to "undermine the baronage content on Wikipedia", and that is a strong accusation to make. What you are not seeing, is that editors are trying to improve the content by ensuring the sources are reliable and properly attributable. The removal of the sources such as Debretts make no sense whatsoever. The addition of "The Roll" in favor makes no sense whatsoever. Everyone who has looked at https://roll.baronage.com/ cannot take it as reliable as there is no transparency whatsoever-- there is no official business registered associated with it, no named individuals and the requirement of good faith for one to take this website's word as a source of truth. Not to mention the AI images and gifs, they do not engender any sort of seriousness whatsoever.

Kelly, by continually advocating for this source, and for the inclusion of weak and undersupported sources into BLPs related to Barons, this conduct appears far more damaging to baronage content on Wikipedia than anything else. Please see WP:BIT. Your continued advocation for this source above all, and neglect to engage with many other editors on this topic is concerning. Nayyn (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

A mass removal of unverified BLP material on this list was undone repeatedly by kEllycrak with the edit summary "Restoring content removed without consensus. WP:BLP does not override WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE for neutral, non-contentious list entries clearly marked with sourcing notes. Mass removals should be discussed — see Talk. " In reality, WP:BLP does trump consensus and certainly Preserve, and entries listed as "unverified" are not "non-contentious" obviously. I would urge Kellycrak to undo their revert or at the very least to stop reverting others who removed unsourced, unverified, or badly sourced entries from this list. Fram (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Fram — I take your point in good faith. As of this morning, I’ve removed the "unverified" tag from the entries, as it seems to have become a source of contention rather than clarity.

More broadly, I’d suggest we refrain from any further major changes to the article — including mass deletions or reverts — until the current RfC concludes and we have a clearer picture of what sources are considered acceptable for inclusion. I’m happy to abide by that outcome either way and appreciate everyone’s engagement. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hard to believe you did that in good faith, or made your suggestion in good faith. What you did was making WP:BLP issues worse, not better. I have reverted to the page version before your latest large revert, people are free to reinsert improvements made since if they believe they are helpful, but please don't reinsert unverified claims that person X or Y is a baron or holds some title, no matter if you tag them as unverified or not. Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fram as you yourself noted, you believe the “unverified” label is contentious. I disagree and do not believe this violates WP:BLP but in good faith and consensus, I removed the tags temporarily pending outcome of the RfC, but the entries were still visually marked as separate with colour coding with explanatory notes, and were not presented as verified. Deleting half the barons from the page without waiting for the RfC outcome — especially where sources like Burke’s and RSN are under discussion — undermines the collaborative process and risks pre-empting consensus. I’ve restored the stable version until wider input is gathered. Please refrain from further removals until the RfC concludes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, back to ANI it is then. Lets hope they finally put an end to this once and for all. Fram (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That RfC has no bearing at all on these removals anyway. Either it decides the roll is reliable, and then we have a reliable source saying these claims are unverified which is a good reason to remive these claims: or the roll is not reliable, in which case we have no source at all for the ones that were removed, and removal is again the right solution under WP:BLP. In no way will that RSN discussion make it correct to keep unverified claims on the page. Fram (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

With respect, @Fram, that’s exactly why the RfC needs to conclude first. It was opened to determine whether The Roll can be used as a source — including how “unverified” entries should be handled. Deleting half the barons from the page mid-discussion undermines that process.

If the RfC finds that the Roll is a reliable source when entries are clearly labelled, then removing “unverified” names may not be necessary. If it’s deemed unreliable, then removal would follow. But that decision has not yet been reached, and pre-empting it undermines the consensus process.

Also worth noting: Wikipedia doesn't require individual notability for names in a list if the list itself is notable (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) — and this list clearly meets that standard. Peerage and baronetage articles routinely include unsourced name lists without this level of scrutiny.

For example not a single citation source is listed here for title holders or heirs — highlighted to @Arcaist in a thread above. Yet those pages remain untouched.

So why is this level of scrutiny and deletion being applied only to the Scottish baronage? Why is @Arcaist's determined campaign not targeting peerage and baronet lists? Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88, @Fram is right, and this has been explained to you about a dozen times on this page alone. You're even back to the notability argument, which we last talked about around 9 days ago. This is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU at this point.

The fact are other lists have poor sourcing doesn't excuse this one (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). You might be shocked to hear that I do other things besides patrol Wikipedia; the only reason I stumbled into this hot mess is that there is some weird Swiss-Antiguan guy who thinks he's very important and also the Sheriff of my county. But rest assured that if those lists are equally poor in their sourcing, and equally problematic in a WP:BLP sense, then myself or someone else will eventually get around to them.

I would also refrain from accusing me of running a "campaign" to "undermining baronage content" or that my goal is to "degrade" and "discredit" your favorite source—it's not helping your case. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88, @Archaist, @Fram, & @Nayyn, Thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion. There are a number of issues all currently competing for attention in terms of triage, and obviously tempers running high high fuelled by heavy frustration. I don't wish to presume that I can make a difference here in terms of proactive forward cooperation, but I'd like to try if I can, still being the new editor "outside looking in". The key issues being danced around (as far as I can tell) are as follows:

1. Presumed Association with "the Roll"

Sometimes it's said pretty point-blank, and sometimes just alluded to, but it seems clear that @Kellycrak88, your fellow editors here believe with some certainty that you are affiliated with, and working at the behest of, "the Roll". When this is alluded to or hinted at, you take offense (as would anyone accused of anything they felt was unjust), however my observation is that you then repeatedly engage in discourse not helpful to your cause. You certainly seem "passionate", but there's passion and then there's marketing. I've never, ever seen an unconflicted editor defend a third-party company (which appeared out of nowhere) in the way in which you have defended "the Roll". The replies aren't just logical (well, some are) and sterile debates on Wikipedia rules and regulations, but cut-and-paste advocacy which continues to ignore the valid concerns raised by your fellow editors. It doesn't matter what "The Roll" states on its website. It doesn't matter than your cut-and-pastes contain claims and promises which are, for lack of a better word, "promising". It is a third-party website with zero transparency and a lack of credibility, and the fact that this is consistently ignored by you while you engage in fierce defense of "the Roll" is likely what's drawing the suspicions of your fellow editors. Since I started to engage here, like you, I have been reviewing "the Roll" nearly daily. It's being changed, in real-time, almost constantly. It's almost as if the editors of that site are watching this Talk page and responding with updates. You of course know this, because you're the first person to rush back here each time there is a change or update to that website, to let everyone know. Each time I review your cut-and-pastes, or your fierce advocacy for this site and why it should merit any trust at all, I ask myself a simple question: "Why?" Why is the majority of your advocacy reserved for this website, and why does the baronage at-large (which I think it's safe to say we are all fascinated by and with for different reasons) take such a huge backseat? Just look at your last (very kind) response to me re: Debrett's and Burke's being re-included. By word count: 29 words devoted to thanking me for my perspective and acquiescing to the re-inclusion of these other sources, 99 discussing the "attack" on other baronage pages (I'll get to that little problem later), and 192 focused on marketing the latest changes/observations on "the Roll" website. And they're (your replies) all like this (please feel free to check your ratios of advocacy for "the Roll" specifically versus any other topic).

You have to take a step back and ask yourself how this looks. Surely you can, with a longer lens perspective, see why this behaviour would create growing suspicion on the part of your fellow editors, can you not? To be clear, I am not trying to attack you or "pile on", rather I am hoping that I can get you to see that if you really want "the Roll" to have even a chance of being taken seriously, and you want to stop being accused of being associated with it, you need to stop the fierce advocacy and step back, like any actual neutral editor would. If you don't, then application of Occam's razor to answer the question of "Why?" leads to only one place, and it's the one you don't want to go to. I applaud your advocacy and commitment to expanding the resource universe Wikipedia uses, and I am interested to see where this goes, but ignoring the valid questioning of the credibility of this new source by your fellow editors while continuing to push the marketing talking points of "the Roll" is not helping you in the end.

2. Verification Criteria

The challenge that we all have here is that verification criteria aren't published by anyone. Not Burke's, not Debrett's, and not "the Roll". We know that the SBR physically views the assignation deed/sales contract or the will of those registered in the SBR, but they don't make that fact public, and they don't publish their own "Roll" - which means that we can't use them, (despite the SBR being the sole source Lord Lyon relies on when deciding to grant baronial arms to a petitioner). Where Burke's and Debrett's have an edge in credibility over the newcomer "Roll" is that they've been trusted to accurately publish the correct information on titled and landed gentry for generations, and "the Roll" has not. I would presume that Debrett's and Burke's have some reasonable due diligence process (perhaps they reach out to the SBR, Lord Lyon, the College of Arms, etc.), and you can't just ring them up and ask to have your name and a bogus title included on the website or published in a book. This assumption is largely supported by the multi-generational fact that credibility is their brand. They are the foundational sources of truth for genealogy, etiquette, titles, styles of address, etc. of the titled nobility and landed gentry, and have been for hundreds of years. Again, if there is compelling proof that's publicly available which calls into question this credibility, then I'd love to see it - but so far as I can tell, there is not. So while I am supportive of "the Roll" getting a spot here as an added source, it cannot be the only source, because as almost everyone has stated already, we know nothing about it other than what it claims. If it becomes more transparent in its processes and builds credibility I am more than willing to give them a fair shake, but as far as I can see, it's not started well for whoever is behind it. Credibility takes time to build. You cannot just appear and say, "Hey, everyone should believe me!". If the SBR produced a Roll of their own tomorrow, it would be instantly credible because the SBR itself, as the sole trusted source used by Lord Lyon, is already credible. If there's a new player in town, they need to build the same credibility through transparency and through the achievement of advocacy from others with credibility: Lord Lyon, leading legal authorities such as Dr. Michael Yellowlees, various clan chiefs (or better yet, the standing council), etc. Until that time, my vote would be to allow "the Roll" to be used only so long as it corroborates another source (i.e. the Registry of Tartans, Debrett's, Burke's) - but if I saw a title on "the Roll" that I could not verify via a separate source, I would not accept that as the sole source of verification, because I have no idea how "the Roll" is verifying anything, and they have not built the credibility for me to extend my trust via years of demonstrated capability. @Kellycrak88 given that you wiped out all competitors to "the Roll" before I joined the discussion, I doubt you'll be in favour of this, but I think it's a fair compromise: "the Roll" stays, but there is a requirement to earn the "top spot" in terms of credibility; that's just not something that can be claimed. And let's be honest: if the SBR did publish its own roll, then that'd be the end of the discussion, unless Lord Lyon also took into consideration some other source of truth, and "the Roll" was one of those sources.

In the end we have (publicly available for free): Debrett's, the Scottish Register of Tartans, The Registry of Scots Nobility, and Lord Lyon's blog (if there are arms granted, and there's a baronial helm, then Lord Lyon recognises that person as a Scottish feudal baron, e.g. Ms. Faith Seale, Baroness of Mullion, here - who incidentally "the Roll" shows as "unverified" presently), and "the Roll". Publicly available (for pay, maybe), we have: Burke's.

My suggestion to the group is this: can we not create a series of columns next to each title holder, with the publicly available information as follows: Title listed/mentioned in/by: Debrett's, The Registry of Scots Nobility, Scottish Register of Tartans, Lyon Court, Roll of the Baronage? Those whose titles link to more mentions by nature will have greater credibility, and those whose titles link to only one may have less credibility (again, if the "one" is the granting of a baronial helm, that person may not care about any further legitimacy given the "gold standard" the Lyon Court conveys). This seems a fair compromise and is not an include or exclude proposition.

3. Consensus

This keeps coming up and repeatedly debated. I would think if we want to move forward "with consensus" then each large action taken should be put to a vote here (unless that's "not a thing" on Wikipedia in which case please ignore me), and "consensus" actually measured. Two editors half-agreeing to something is not a consensus; several getting angry enough to stack up on the same side is a consensus...

In conclusion, I hope that we're all here for the same reason. These titles (whether of property or nobility is a discussion for another time) are fascinating pieces of history. Many of them pre-date Peerage titles, and have been held by consequential people. Some have been in the same family for generations - and yes, some have been bought and sold so many times it's embarrassing. This will always be a contentious subject, because these titles will always lure those who want to be a noble overnight, and think this is how that's done. Once bought, those people will try to insert references wherever possible to self-aggrandize even more what the barony has allowed them to build a foundation on, and they will try to use Wikipedia to do that. On the other side are those families with a real and direct historical connection to a place, and the barony title acts as a conduit between that person and that history. In the end I don't care what someone's reasons are for buying a title, or whether it's been theirs for ten generations. I only care that the information presented here is as accurate and free of bias as it can be, and to that end, I offer these observations and suggestions. Brit-o-pedia (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Brit-o-pedia Your accusations are false.

As I stated in Arcaist’s complaint about me to the ASN administrator board, I am not affiliated with The Roll—except, along with other editors, supporting its inclusion as a valid WP:RS for Scottish baronage topics.

I don't doubt that many people in the baronage community (including from The Roll) follow our discussions. The governing council section being updated was posted by @Daniel Plumber in the Rs - that's when I noticed the update and mention it in the thread.

At present, I’m banned from editing the page, and an ANI is ongoing which may lead to further sanctions. Today, Arcaist also filed a sockpuppetry report against me, accusing me of being the anonymous IP that reverted the page—something it would be absurd for me to do mid-ANI.

As it stands, over half the baronial name-title entries have been removed or pages deleted. Without balanced editorial input, the direction of this project is becoming clear.

I’ve tried to be a neutral but constructive contributor. Unfortunately, this will likely be one of my last messages. Good luck with the page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kellycrak88 I did not accuse you of anything; I was merely pointing out - in an attempt to help you - why you were being accused in the first place, and suggesting actions you might want to take in order to be spared those accusations in the future. You seemed to me to be "digging your own grave" so-to-speak, and given your obvious passion I didn't want to see that continue if the accusations were false. I am sorry that (somehow) you took my observations in a different way. Brit-o-pedia (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you may have deleted the addition made by me last weekend (apologies if I am confusing you with another editor, I am not a Wikipedia expert!). Here is a reputable academic source from a renowned institution for the addition I made https://www.rps.ac.uk/search.php?a=fcf&fn=charlesi_trans&id=18396&t=trans (Records of the Parliaments of Scotland on the University of St Andrews website) and the relevant quote to confirm the existence of this barony "Our sovereign lord and estates of this present parliament have ratified and approved and, by this legislation, ratify and approve the charter granted by his majesty, with consent of his highness's treasurer, treasurer depute and other lords of his majesty's exchequer, under his highness's great seal, of the date 21 January 1632, to his majesty's beloved Sir John Wauchope of Niddrie-Marischal, knight, therein designed John Wauchope, his male heirs and assignees whatsoever, of all and whole the lands and barony of Niddrie-Marischal, (...)". Given this proof, could you please reinstate this? Thank you! 86.13.173.140 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fram Hello, just following up on my message above. Also happy to reinstate this myself, but obviously wary not to be accused of vandalism on this page. FYI @Nayyn @Brit-o-pedia @MSGJ , as I see you are quite active here, perhaps you could help as well? As a note, there are details in the source quoted above which I did not incorporate in my addition i.e. the creation date and the seat - again, happy to add those, as long as it all doesn't end up deleted. Many thanks! 86.13.173.140 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

We know so extremely little about this title that it hardly seems useful to include it. I see that your draft Draft:Baron of Niddrie Marischal claims that the title has been used by the Wauchope family since the start, but the source you provide indicates that they lived 150 years ago still at the same place, not that they held the title. Apart from a brand new, empty website, there seems to be nothing recent even remotely reliable about this title? Fram (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, I am only referencing historic and academic sources in the draft, and only a couple, however the historic publication https://deriv.nls.uk/dcn23/9538/95384318.23.pdf by James_Paterson_(journalist) which I reference there dated 1858 refers to this barony in present tense (therefore it would have existed by then for well over 200 years since its creation in 1632), and references (one of the latter references to word "barony", if you do a search in the pdf, the sasines relating to this barony of Niddrie Marischal from early 19th century. Given the sources are reputable, and the fact that a number of members of the Wauchope family have been referred to as "of Niddrie Marischal" (i.e. barons of Niddrie Marischal) in e.g. Burke's Peerage or Debrett's in 19th and 20th centuries (which can be googled, but I'm happy to share some of such searches here, if useful), nothing suggests the title ceased to exist. Perhaps it has not been used actively, is only a subsidiary title etc. However, some examples of the use can nevertheless be found on Wikipedia e.g. Andrew_Wauchope and in particular the picture of his grave included in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wauchope#/media/File:Andrew_Wauchope_gravesite.jpg , or John Andrew Wauchope of Niddrie Marischal referred to in Baron_Ventry, and of course the article about John_Wauchope,_Lord_Edmonstone could be completed with the information that this barony was created for him, as per the source from the University of St Andrews I shared above. 86.13.173.140 (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Fram , following up on my message above from last week in response to yours. To summarise, in terms of this proposed inclusion being useful, firstly the title is confirmed by as reputable a source as it gets i.e. the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland held by the University of St Andrews, and so I do not see how its existence could be disputed. And secondly, this new reference could be used in a number of existing Wikipedia articles (e.g. the ones I listed above, but likely also others that I may not be familiar with). Perhaps, if you could let me know your reservations specifically regarding the inclusion of this title on this page here, then I could try to address them? Thank you! 86.13.173.140 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fram - there now is a published page for this barony Baron_of_Niddrie_Marischal which has passed considerable scrutiny and is now very well supported, and so it would also make sense to include it on this page. Would you therefore be able to undo your deletion? Or confirm you are happy for me to recreate the appropriate content, so it doesn't appear like I am vandalising this page? Thank you! 86.13.173.140 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Unclear which text you want to reintroduce, but looking at the article, I'm not really impressed. E.g. "One of the more recent title holders was Major-General Andrew Gilbert Wauchope." is not supported by the source it seems: he is a member of the family, but was he a title holder? Fram (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Other example: "and has since been in use by the Wauchope family" is sourced to a book from 1914 and one from 1909. These shouldn't be used to make any statements about the current situation obviously. Furthermore, I see that the 1909 source points to page 1999, which indeed talks about "Frederick Rossmore Wauchope, 5th and current baron". However, this is the entry for the Baron Ventry, not for the Baron Niddrie Marischal, and thus doesn't even support the claim for that period. The other source is published in 1914, but the actual reference is the reproduction of a document from 1662.

So these two sources, which would be too old to reference a claim about 2025 anyway, don't support said claim for the period these books were published either.

I'm sorely tempted to send it back to draft, as a poor piece of work. Gutting it to remove all dubious claims is another option of course. Fram (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fram Thanks quick responses. The text I am asking to reinstate is what I originally included in this article i.e. one line in the table for this barony, linking to the draft (now approved) article. In respect of the article regarding the barony itself, by now it is the work of multiple editors (i.e. not just mine) and the external source I believe you are referring to did not come from me personally. Nevertheless, the person in question was a holder, as you see from e.g. the photo of his tombstone, available on Wikipedia (I previously shared the link in our conversation above). Regarding the source relating to Baron Ventry, that family is closely related, which you can see even e.g. here Baron_Ventry - perhaps it is a case of fleshing out the significance of the source which was presented for this particular point. But obviously the aim of this new article has always been to be as well resourced as possible, with no dubious claims included. After all, it is referring purely to historical facts and significance of this barony in the context of the Wauchope family and its locality. I am sure it wouldn't have been anyone's intention to include any misleading information relating to its history. And by all means, you are very welcome to make improvements to the barony article (as are the other editors from this page, who I presume to be knowledgeable on the subject of Scottish baronies in general). 86.13.173.140 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This is the version you wrote, and all the examples of problems I gave are already present in that version it seems. And no, a photo of a tombstone is not a WP:RS. Please recheck all your sources, remove ones not supporting the text, and rewrite the article to only include well-sourced claims. Whether the Baron Ventry family is "closely related" to Wauchope of Niddrie Marischal is irrelevant for this discussion, the claim that circa 1900 there were still barons Wauchope of Niddrie Marischal can not be sourced to an entry about the baron Ventry which doesn't make any claim about the baron Niddrie Marischal. Fram (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Update entry

Grateful if for Auchtermunzie, the entry can be completed by adding the date for Infeft, as 2004 based on the Gazette reference already made (footnote 39). Thank you. 2600:4041:57C7:DD00:ECFE:FA66:4C3A:7F42 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere does the source say Infeft. Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Nayyn (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Citing Burke's

When citing Burke's Peerage, in the interest of verifiability, it is preferable to specify the correct edition of Burke's. Please use a direct link if citing the web edition (not just a link to Burke's search page). It is the obligation of any WP editor to cite sources in a manner that can be verified by others; please don't expect other editors to manually find the information to which you are referring. The fact that Burke's Peerage is behind a paywall does not exclude it as a WP:RS (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Burke's Peerage); however, for paywalled sources, using correct citations is even more important, given that a smaller number of WP editors will have the access required to verify your citation. Charliez (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Pruning required

I've just gone through and fixed the table formatting, which was a mess. The table is full of unverifiable entries that should be updated or removed. Entries with no article, no details, and no references, give nothing to verify that the Barony actual ever existed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree @ActivelyDisinterested. You can maybe see above that we had a very long discussion around this in June/July, which ended with one of the main contributors getting banned after failing to understand BLP criteria.

I don't think we agreed on what our inclusion and sourcing criteria should be in the aftermath of that, so this might be a good place to start. @Charliez and @Daniel Plumber, you've both been active here, so pinging you for this. — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw the state of the table because of those discussions, they spilled over to RSN where I became involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a degree of consensus that both Debrett’s and Burke’s are acceptable sources.

My plan has been to go through the list and check each entry, adding references to these sources where they exist. Once that is complete, I was going to suggest on this talk page that all unsourced entries are removed. I have so far checked half the list against Burke’s, but, as you can imagine given the number of entries, it is quite time-consuming... Charliez (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Given my reservations about WP:BURKES' rather limited coverage of these titles, it may be best to check against both it and WP:DEBRETTS; a title may merit inclusion if it appears in either of these sources. I also think using the Lord Lyon's Roll of the Chiefs and the Heads of Territorial Houses in the Edinburgh Gazette would be a good idea; however, given that it hasn't been updated since 2005, its usefulness depends on how we intend to apply it. I reckon it's sufficient to indicate the existence of particular baronies - perhaps we could also use it to verify barons until a better entitlement with sources exists? Daniel Plumber (talk) Choisir d'avancer 11:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

My intention was to include both Debrett’s and Burke’s. Both are considered WP:RS, and therefore an entry in either should suffice as a source. If the information is contradictory, that would warrant further research or at least a properly noted qualification.

For baronial titles traditionally associated with Chiefship or Chieftainship, I believe it should be acceptable to cite sources demonstrating the historical link between the titles, and then reference a WP:RS for the current Chief or Chieftain. Charliez (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a good idea.

Re: source attributions, since adding inline citations for each entry can get a bit exhausting, maybe we could just add a note at the bottom like "Source, unless otherwise stated:" (similar to what's done in this English feudal barony list)? I'm suggesting this because, if I remember correctly, most peerage/baronetcy lists don’t usually have this many inline citations, so this might help keep things cleaner. Daniel Plumber (talk) Choisir d'avancer 04:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I have checked the entire table against Debrett's and Burke's. There are still a number of entries with no source or with poor-quality sources cited. My suggestion would be to remove those entries, but with the caveat that we may wish to retain the actual barony on the list, albeit with no incumbent listed. These could then be checked one by one against records of the Scottish Parliament and other public sources to verify whether the barony even exists. If it does, it could remain on the list without an incumbent until a reliable source confirms the identity of the current baron. Charliez (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Content needs to be verifiable, if it can't be verified it should be removed for the moment. It can always be added back when sources are found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely; my point was more about workflow. In the records of the Scottish Parliament, one of the main sources for verifying the existence of baronies, looking up a barony is significantly less labour-intensive than checking thousands of pages for baronial titles. Hence, my suggestion to remove unverified personal names but retain the barony name until it can be checked against those records. If the existence of the barony cannot be verified, then it can be removed. Charliez (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Charliez BTW, barony of Niddrie Marishall (Marischal) mentioned in the following records of Scottish Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_Parliament_of_Scotland_from_1672 , however not listed on this page as yet 86.13.173.140 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I found the ratification document in the records of the Scottish Parliament and added the barony, though without an incumbent as I don't have any WP:RS for that. Charliez (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Charliez thank you very much! A Wikipedia page for the barony already exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_of_Niddrie_Marischal , although would do with an additional check of contents vs the quoted sources, ideally by an expert in Scottish baronies. Also, per the source quoted in that article, the barony was created earlier i.e. in 1632, however the source for that date is external to Wikipedia. As a note, I set this page up originally, but it has been modified by other editors since. 86.13.173.140 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)