Wikipedia nonsense - County of Fürstenberg

From annawiki
Revision as of 2014-03-16T22:05:03 by Tobiasco (talk | contribs)

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: