Wikipedia nonsense - County of Fürstenberg
https://www.google.com/search?q=f%C3%BCrstenberg+county
First hit:
Fürstenberg (principality) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fürstenberg_(principality) Fürstenberg was a county (German: Graftschaft) of the Holy Roman Empire in Swabia, present-day southern Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
In the Infobox of the article it says: 1218–1408
This is Wikipedia-nonsense. The first line of the article claims Fürstenberg was a county. But the article title contains the word "principality". But a county is not a principality and more specifically before 1408 there was no principality of Fürstenberg in the Swabian Circle.
Elevation to principality
Also here Wikipedia contains nonsense:
- German Wikipedia says it was 1664 "1664 wurden Hermann Egon aus der Linie Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg und seine geistlichen Brüder Franz Egon (Bischof von Straßburg) und Wilhelm Egon (Kardinal) von Kaiser Leopold in den Fürstenstand erhoben"[1]
- English Wikipedia says it was 1667 "In 1667, Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg was raised to a principality and received a vote at the Reichstag." [2]
For more, the Google link:
History
The article used to be called "Fürstenberg (state)" but since there are different entities called Fürstenberg that were a state, it was suggested 2011-01-19 to rename it to "Fürstenberg (county)", which followed the intro line at that time that read
The County of Fürstenberg was a county of the Holy Roman Empire in Swabia, present-day southern Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Idiots jumped in, hijack the move proposal, and renamed the article to "principality".
Why? User:Victor_falk wrote /Later elevated noble families like the Fürstenberg, Liechtenstein or Thurn und Taxis dynasties subsequently began to refer to their territory as a "principality" and assumed the awarded rank of a Prince (Fürst) as a hereditary title./
No proof given, that this happened anytime between 1218–1408.
User:Orderinchaos supports this nonsense with " per Victor above - makes the most sense here - we have to be careful re WP:OR, and that one can at least be verified" - Wao. In fact exactly the other way around. It could not be verified and is OR.
Heise
This case made it to Heise Forum and no matter what the facts are:
- User Seigneur at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/S-Das-groesste-Eigentor/forum-276507/msg-24937810/read/ talks about an entity that in 1664 (Wikipedia quote 1) or 1667 (Wikipedia quote 2) became a principality. So he shows only more nonsense. But that is completely irrelevant, since the article in question has a time span tag with an end time before that.
- User Gibbon at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/S-Re-Qualitaet-liefern-und-auf-Algorithmen-und-Menschen-vertrauen/forum-276507/msg-24937815/read/ writes: "Dein Link ist hier der einzige Blödsinn."