Login
Login

Talk:Baronage of Scotland#Sources and general Editorial Standards

{{Scottish English}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|blp=yes|listas=Scottish Feudal Barony|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes}}

{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Lists |class=List |importance=Low}}

}}

Untitled

I created this article for collecting feudal baronies. I doubt if there have been creations of such baronies after 1707, but I want to have the possibility to put in also such baronies.
VM 17:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::Better add some refs and an explanation of these peculiar left-overs.
DGG 01:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Do you have an idea of what category this page should belong to?
VM 15:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is still very incomplete, since many Scottish baronies -- most -- are missing. Many are ancient subsidiary feudal titles held by Scottish hereditary peers. In addition, it mistakenly conflates feudal earldoms and dukedoms with baronies; they should be listed separately. The feudal earldom of Arran should not be listed among the baronies without clarifying that it is an earldom outranking all baronies. The feudal earldoms of Breadalbane and Crawfurd-Lindsay are simply missing, as is the feudal dukedom of Lenox (which in turn outranks all earldoms).24.227.153.54 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the current Baroness of Lag is Margaret Hamilton. The Baron of Mordington is Graham Senior-Milne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephaestos69 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I also concur with the comment respecting feudal earldoms (and lordships). Some lordships, though not all, are also baronies (ex. - Kilmarnock and Holydean), but others are not (ex. - lordship of the Garioch). If the titles which outrank baronies are to be included in this list, they should at least be denoted as what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephaestos69 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Need for individual histories

Each feudal barony ideally should have its own article, wikified from this list, as will soon the English feudal baronies, now all defunct. It is never too late to start such a history even where historical records are lacking. Where a current holder dies or sells, it would be desirable instead of simply deleting his name from the list and replacing it with the new holder, to start a new article titled "Scottish feudal barony of X", which will start the history as if at year 0 with a brief biography of the deceased holder, how he acquired the barony etc. I am not aware if there is any authoritative publication such as Debrett's Peerage which records the descent of these feudal baronies, or indeed whether any heraldic or other body exists which records them. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

Rationalisation of feudal barony articles

I propose the following as a logical structure for the broad area of the feudal barony:

I am pasting the above to talk pages of the other articles concerned. Your comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Role of Feudal Baronies Today

Altruists: The Baronies of Prestongrange & Dolphinston are active in the cultural and economic development of their territories. Conquerers: The Barony and Lordship of Halydean (Holydean) reincorporated in Delaware and is amassing land and grazing animals abroad in a corporate "mergers & acquisitions" manner with all of the conquering fervor of any ancient Norman raider. Historians: Other barons act as historical spokesmen for their territories. Genteels: Many feudal barons quite elegantly insist, "please, just call me John," and strive to downplay their status. Perhaps a section could be added to this article describing the role of feudal baronies today? Does anyone find this interesting? insightfullysaid, talk 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.119.40.101 (talk)

Counties

What is the definition of county in the list of baronies? Is it the “historic county”, and if so, in which era? See the articles Counties of Scotland, Barony and Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The county name at the time the barony was created may have changed during its history, and counties and burghs were replaced by other units after 1975. Contributors have used various versions. Also, there is variation with “shire”, e.g. Ayr/Ayrshire. Although baronies are no longer tied to land, I think it’s useful to include county. I’m going to use the historic counties before 1890 for now in my own additions, since that's when the baronies were created, and add shire, but I’d like to see this clarified. Cataobh (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious I'm a newbie. So un-Wikipedic to ask. I'm implementing my own standards as described above, starting with my own additions. Other viewpoints are welcome though, of course! Cataobh (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Finnart

The baronies of Finnart and Finnart-Stewart would appear to come into this category, but have since been merged into Greenock and Gourock respectively. Should they be listed? . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Barony of Lochiel?

Here are two sources that say the lands of Lochiel were united into a Barony in the early sixteenth century:

  1. http://www.scotsoflou.com/public/images/pdfs/clanifo/clanpdf/C/Clan%20CAMERON.pdf
  2. http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans/blclancameron.htm

Is this adequate evidence that Lochiel should be added to the list of feudal baronies? Thanks GPS Pilot (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

New link

I have just linked a new article Barony of Preston and Prestonpans in the list - please feel free to take a look and improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Blackhall

We had some trouble with editors in getting the Barony of Blackhall page up, to which this page is linked; notabiity guidelines require that other knowledgeable sources, including you on this site, improve the article. Please feel free to add some constructive editing to advance the Blackhall site if necessary, including bringing it into line with the guidelines of this 'Barons in Scotland' site.

Also, would it not be useful to get some exposure to the Convention of the Baronage? Your site here could really be useful for pulling the whole baronage together a bit tighter. Kind wishes and well done. 2A02:1205:C698:9940:CD26:8BA6:D4B3:5446 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Baron Baillie?

Why does Baron baillie link here, but then there is no further mention of it? Kiltpin (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

N.N. of X

In the list of present Barons there is a tendency to add the baronial land designation after the name. Why? The territorial designation in the left column should suffice. The purpose of the column of name is to know the name of the holder - should not first name and surname suffice for that? Not need to flaunt the territorial designation in that column... Jonar242 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Technically, the territorial designation would be a part of the official name of the Baron, only if he is still in possession of the caput (i.e. the land that formerly was part of the legal barony). Being in possession of the caput allows the Lord Lyon to officially recognize the holder of the designation as: John Smith of XXX, Baron of XXX. If not

In possession of the caput, the hold is simply: John Smith, Baron of XXX.

But I suspect you’re referring to the title “Baron/Lord of XXX”. I would agree that there’s no need to add that in the list of barons. But if we’re taking about John Smith of XXX, Baron of XXX (i.e. someone that is recognized as a baron and entitled to use the territorial designation in his name), then we might want to consider allowing the designation in the name of the holder. But only if there’s a reference citing his right to bear the designation as part of his name. Gillespk (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Barony of Earlshall

Although the family no longer owns Earlshall Castle, David Robert Baxter (Baron Earlshall) retained the title and coat of arms, presented to him by Lord Lyons of Arms. The Baron died in April 2018, whereupon his wife. Lorraine Earlshall assumed the title of Baroness Earlshall. The patents, scrolls and legal paperwork are currently held in her possession. ADM Baxter, son of the present Baroness. 2A00:23C5:6282:7D01:7D25:31E7:5F14:3D4 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

:There should really be a source to keep her on the list but I won't remove her name myself.

:NB the correct form is "Baroness of Earshall" as the style "Baroness Earlshall" would imply that she is a life-peeress with different precedence and a seat in the House of Lords. Kaahukura (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

fantasy kings and earls

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baronage_of_Scotland&diff=prev&oldid=1228738946 This edit], in the guise of reorganization, also slipped in an entry for an "Earl of Crawfurd-Lindsay" (distinct from the Earl of Crawford and the Earl of Lindsay), cited to the website of a fantasy kingdom – as well as attributing the coat of arms of a football club to a couple hundred of the barons. Does anyone have the energy to check whether it also introduced other nonsense, or shall we simply revert to immediately before it? —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:Agreed. It verges on vandalism. So much inaccurate, self styled pretence and fakery has been added in recent months. Notes on which Barons are related, or satanists, or self styled African "Kings" are not notable, not reliable and wholly irrelevant to the topic.

:I haven't checked every link but can confirm a lot of nonsense on this and other linked pages. Not sure what to do about it but I'll flag here that the linked pages of several Barons have been edited to call them 'noble' when Scottish Barons do not meet the crown's (admittedly quite strict) definition of nobility.

:I would vote to revert to before the page was moved. Barons in Scotland is a more neutral description, lacking the pretence of equivalence with historical baronages or the peerage. Kaahukura (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

::just had another look at the arms column and most have nothing to do with the current holder of the Barony. Some also bear no relation to the history of the barony (the first two are an unrelated clan chief and a life-peeress). I think that's another argument for a major rollback Kaahukura (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

:::[http://kingdomofbiffeche.net Biffeche] is selfpublished and does not reliably support that the persons mentioned are members of the baronage. I support the recent removal of them, until there are reliable sources.

:::On the other hand [https://www.registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage/ the Registry of Scots Nobility lists some of the titles and incumbents and can be used as source, removing the unreliable Biffeche source. We should avoid selfpublished sources, especially those that claim that someone is royalty since they tend to be exaggerated or outright fabricated.

:::Maybe a revert to June 11 is the best, and then the texts that the user wrote can be restored from the article history. Sjö (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

::::@Sjö Fakery should not be tolerated I completely agree, but I disagree with reverting to June 11 as the old version formatting was terrible, the page needs to be improved upon further, not go backwards. I do agree we do need reliable referenced sources which we should all contribute to.

::::I support the page title staying as the Baronage of Scotland as per the official body The Convention of The Baronage of Scotland (https://www.scotsbarons.org/) which represents scottish barons originally being one of the former [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Parliament_of_Scotland Three Estates of Scotland].

::::Regarding nobility — I've added 8 sources including institutional writers, the court of the Lord Lyon representing the monarch in Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission Government Website and UK Government Legislation Website and Scottish parliament -- all referring to the NOBLE title of a scottish baron and the noble quality and noble aspects of the barony title.

::::So to remove and ignore verified resources I do not agree with.

::::I agree we can remove http://kingdomofbiffeche.net/ but it's eccentric info about the baron which can be confirmed in his movies and other press articles. The titles can easily be confirmed and referenced by Burke's Peerage https://www.burkespeerage.com/search.php or if available Lord Lyon court documents which I'm now adding to the page. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

::::regarding the baron that's a satanist, he says on his official page that he's a member of the church of Satan which is a recognised religion in the US military and he's a in the US military, it's eccentric info in the notes field I thought Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

:Regarding the Earldom of Crawfurd-Linsday: Court of the Lord Lyon: "In 2006 Lord Lyon Blair recognised three Petitioners who had similarly been granted lands traceable back to a royal erection in unum comitatum as “Feudal Countess of Crawfurd-Lindsay" https://web.archive.org/web/20160303181027/http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/files/WES%20Note.pdf

:Also listed as Earl of Crawfurd-Lindsay and Baron of Auchterutherstruther on https://www.burkespeerage.com/search.php

:I agree that this is a page for baronial Baron titles and there is a separate page for baronial Earl titles.

:However, if the holder's primary baronial title is an Earldom or has subsidiary titles the formatting of the page clearly states:

:Titles in italics are subsidiary baronial titles held by the same baron. Titles linked and with The before the name is the holder's primary title. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @Tamfang, @Kaahukura, @Kellycrak88, and @Sjö - I just came across this discussion while I did an AfD for Earl of Rothes (Baronage of Scotland). That page to me looks like a clear case of a paid-for "title", complete with a supposed history about how the (real) Earl of Rothes "peerage" title and the "feudal" title had been split, a claim which is unsourced. The current "holder" of the supposed title is a guy with Swiss and Antigua & Barbuda citizenship with a peacock article, a bunch of other weird awards and titles, and no connections to Scotland whatsoever.

:Looking at the list on this page here, it seems there might be few cases like that, for which one the recurring sources is [https://www.registryofscotsnobility.com| registryofscotsnobility.com], a nondescript and unverifiable website without listed owners or administrators, and which is likely just another forum for those who bought these kinds of titles. It's also concerning that the [https://www.registryofscotsnobility.com/assembly-of-scots-nobility/| public agenda of the next meeting] of this 'Registry of Scots Nobility' specifically mentions the creation of Wikipedia pages of their 'titles' - and this list specifically - as a success.

:Can we make a concerted effort to prune this page back and see if we can AfD as many of these fake titles as possible? — Arcaist (contr—talk) 11:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Forgot to tag @Fram, who has also had some concerns about these lists of supposed title holders in the past, I believe. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't really care much whether these are "fantasy" titles or real but completely unimportant titles, many should be deleted or redirected instead of having stand-alone pages, and removed or massively pruned from articles on the older hereditary titles they claim to succeed. Of course true hoaxes should be speedily deleted, but many of the remainder lack notability even if they are perhaps verifiable. I would also suggest to remove the "heir" column from this article, as in many cases it is unsourced information about sometimes quite young and otherwise not notable persons, with titles they don't seem to use (e.g. [https://www.google.com/search?q=Ty+Svensson%2C+%22Younger+of+Crawfordjohn%22&sca_esv=9f05e2405697a5fa&rlz=1C1GCEB_enBE1103BE1103&ei=YZBBaIScFbapkdUPqrjiwA4&ved=0ahUKEwjE0MXqptqNAxW2VKQEHSqcGOgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Ty+Svensson%2C+%22Younger+of+Crawfordjohn%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJlR5IFN2ZW5zc29uLCAiWW91bmdlciBvZiBDcmF3Zm9yZGpvaG4iMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI-ApQyQZYiAhwAXgAkAEAmAF4oAHiAaoBAzAuMrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAqACccICDhAAGIAEGLADGIYDGIoFmAMAiAYBkAYBkgcDMS4xoAewA7IHAzAuMbgHcMIHAzAuMsgHBA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp this one]). Fram (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Fram Agree re: the heir column especially, which doesn't have a single non-self-published source. I'm happy to take the plunge and remove it.

::::I'll see if anyone I tagged chimes in, and then I'll start pruning the table of any title that doesn't have its own page, has a non-notable holder, and was recently (post-20th century) 're-established'. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 14:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I once removed all the notes on this article, as some of them were very poorly sourced. I don't think there are many nonsensical titles on the list now, as they were all removed some time ago. As for the heirs, most have no source cited and should probably be removed or updated with a source such as the semi-official Roll (which doesn't seem to list many heirs anyway). There are heirs on the list with proper sources, though, so I don't think a blanket removal is a good idea.

:::::As for notability, that should not be a requirement for inclusion on a list like this. While notability would be required for a dedicated article, the mention of an individual on a page does not require notability. If that were the threshold, it would mean the removal of many names from other lists too (e.g. lists of peers, baronets, etc.). The aim of a list like this should be accuracy and completeness. So, if there are sources cited of sufficient quality, the name should be kept. Charliez (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Charliez Good point re: notability in a list - I agree that someone merely mentioned in a list doesn't have to be notable.

::::::However, the list still has many entries where neither title nor holder have an article, and neither have any sources. In other words, that information could be correct, or completely made up. Going down the list, that's true for Aden, Anstruther, Arndilly, Auchendarroch, Audindoir, and Auchterutherstruther, and that's just the 'A's. And that's assuming that we count the Barony Roll as a source, which I have severe doubts about (see my comment in the other chain on this page), seeing as it happily lists "unverified holders of baronies". — Arcaist (contr—talk) 15:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Just a note that I responded below to your comment (to try to keep the discussion in one thread). Charliez (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Notes column

How come the notes column was removed? It was very useful for noting dead barons and father was Lord Lyon etc. Who's in favour of brining it back with notability and RS Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

:As stated in the edit comment, I removed these because the notes were full of unverified information, information unsuited for an encyclopaedia, orthographic mistakes and generally of poor quality. In my view the overall quality was so low that a complete removal of the notes column was the right option. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a notes column per se, but it would need to be relevant to the barony or current baron and not "promotional" - and it would need to meet the normal standard of reliable sources.

:If your proposal is to put back the old notes en masse, I would be very much opposed. If your proposal is to add a new column for notes and then work in relevant notes that meet the above criteria one-by-one, I see no problem. This would apply equally to new information and information I removed that, on review (and link to proper sources), meet those requirements. I objected to the content, not the notes feature itself - and as I said, in my view overall it was so poor that the right thing was to remove the entire column, rather than review every entry.

:PS! I did retain all the information relating to dead barons, including the references, but I moved it to footnotes. We're talking about 5-8 baronies, at most. Charliez (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

::Understood, let's proceed with your second point if you're in agreement Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

:::As I said: no issue re a notes field in itself, so if you have relevant notes you want to add please go ahead. Though I do want to highlight the risk such a field constitutes in terms of tempting some users into self-promotion and COI edits. I reverted one just yesterday which seemed like pretty blatant COI and did not meet the requirement for reliable sources. As it is an entirely "free text" field, I would prefer if edits err on the conservative side with high quality sources cited properly.

:::One issue to mention is that I reformatted the table to keep all rows of equal column length. I honestly don't know what WP best practices on this is. Personally I think that looks better, but unless there are some automated tools it would be a time consuming job to add a field to each row (it certainly was, when I did the edit...) Charliez (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

::::I think it's probably better if you add the notes back as you know which ones you don't like. I know you probably don't like the satanist note, or King of Ghana, or lord of of the manor mentions or appointed to the Order of Saint Lazarus just guessing... so which ones are you objecting to? Died or Seat or interesting occupation, or relation/father or marriage are all very interesting and uses on peerage lists. Btw I think all of these are fine so waiting for objections, here's some examples:

::::Died 2019

::::Canadian billionaire

::::German banker

::::Father is Baron of Inneryne

::::father was Sir Malcolm Innes of Edingight, grandfather was Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, previous Lord Lyons

::::known as Mr Marcus Humphrey of Dinnet and does not use baronial title

::::runs a Barons court with brother Baron of Prestoungrange and father Baron of Lochnaw

::::was 21st Laird of Abergeldie Castle, sold the castle

::::Bloodline dates to 6c. He is viewed as a "sovereign lord" by the Lord Lyon. Premier baron predates Kingdom of Scotland (and Kings of Scots) in his passport like the King before name By The Grace Of God

::::married Lady Harriot Pleydell-Bouverie, daughter of 7th Earl of Radnor

::::Seat: Ballindalloch Castle. Appointed Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and Lord Lieutenant of Banffshire, does not use baronial title; prefers to be known as Mrs Clare Russell, married to commoner

::::Seat: Kilcoy Castle, father is Lord of the Garioch heir to the lordship Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Charliez if you prefer just tell me which other ones you don't like as I imagine it would only be a handful Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::I will leave your edits at your own discretion, though to add a few comments: In general, I think the wording on some of these could be improved by a more encyclopaedic or genealogical editorial style (so "Peter Smith, formerly of X Castle" rather than "was 21st Laird of X Castle, sold the castle"). "Bloodline dates to 6c. He is viewed as a "sovereign lord" by the Lord Lyon. Premier baron predates Kingdom of Scotland (and Kings of Scots) in his passport like the King before name By The Grace Of God" should be reworded entirely, to e.g. "The barony predates the Kingdom of Scotland and is thus not of a traditional feudal origin. As their baronial rights predates the feudal systems, the Barons of X have traditionally used the prefix "By the Grace of God" and this has been accepted by HM Passport Office.

::::::I'd drop "German banker" and "Canadian billionaire" as they are subjective terms, unless there are WP pages for these individuals using the same description.

::::::Also, I think we should keep in mind that the list is a list of baronies, not barons, and as such comments on currents barons should be kept short and to the point.

::::::I'm presuming there are reliable sources for all these notes, so not commenting on that aspect. Charliez (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

'''Wrong Chapeau'''/Cap of Maintenance '''Colours and Furs'''

In the table, the caps over the shields are red with ermine fur. Certain baronies have other cap colours (blue for some pre-2004-no-longer-in-possession barons, green for certain nordic-origin fiefs) or are correctly furred ermines, etc. Here, the cap of the Barony of the Bachuil is shewn wrong with ermine fur (also shewn wrong on the Baron of the Bachuil page, though correctly described). Its cap fur should be vair (representing squirrel fur), not ermine, a unique honour for predating all Scots feudal titles (cf. Lord Lyon Innes of Learney; cf. Letters Patent (matriculation of WJA Livingston) 1 June 2004). The correct cap "gules furred vair" is shewn in the full achievement of arms of Livingston of Bachuil, on page 9 of: https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205638/http://www.baronage.co.uk/2006a/Bachuil.pdf . 2600:1700:2000:E740:411C:6B4C:D9F1:C5F8 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:please provide the graphic? 167.179.242.171 (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Undisputed in lead

The lead should say only undisputed UK title of nobility as lord of the manor titles and English feudal barony titles may be valid. Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:It is not an "undisputed" UK title of nobility. There are many people that claim scottish baronage titles are not titles of nobility, even though the facts and evidence are not on their side, so it's absolutely not "undisputed" and it's misleading to add this word to the page. There is no consensus to add this word to the page, so stop adding this word to the page, and constantly and repeatedly changing the page to the way you want it to be, when other editors disagree. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources and general Editorial Standards

This article would benefit from clear editorial policies. The presentation of data is not always consistent, particularly regarding naming conventions and other formatting standards.

In addition, the sources cited vary greatly in quality, and I suspect that some may be deriving their information from Wikipedia itself, creating a circular sourcing problem.

While the Scottish Barony Register is undoubtedly a reliable source—being recognised as such by the Lord Lyon—its findings are only public when reported by third parties. The Scottish Baronage has done significant work to make reliable data available, particularly through the Roll of the Baronage.

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. It is better to omit uncertain data than to include potentially incorrect material. At present, the Roll appears to be the only source with both clear criteria for inclusion and transparent public verification policies. Charliez (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, there are some questionable and outright unverifiable fakes on the list, hence colour coded, instead of removing these entries I suggest we remove the title after their name and refer to holders as Mr. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have to disagree, roll's in an incomplete and unrecognised source, i recommend that the use of burkes peerage (HMPO use burkes peerage as its primary sources to verify such titles) as the bases for sich titles, as ive seen titles listed here that aren't included in the roll which goes agint this idea. Tieonetwo (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Burke's requires a paid subscription and is not a public register and is incomplete as only covers a fraction of barons, I agree with @Charliez the Roll has clear criteria for inclusion and transparent public verification policies (if barons are not validated through that process there is a reason they're fake). Roll also records and encourages cooperating organisations and institutions to not recognise unverified titles, it ticks all the boxes as a credible source for wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Any non-commercial baronage/community driven register should be given weight according to the quality of the source. I don't know much about the Roll, but it is one of the few publicly available sources that publish the exact criteria for inclusion.

::In addition, I'm sure you will appreciate that the WP community is justifiably suspicious to a user who registered not 15 hours ago to promote a commercial alternative over serious, non-commercial and community driven initiatives with published editorial standards. It raises question about motives and possible Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Charliez (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Tieonetwo (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I appreciate the concern about editorial standards and the need for verifiable, non-circular sourcing. I would like to clarify my position as user tieonetwo and respond constructively. Tieonetwo (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::what I'm try to say as tieonetwo is the reliance on one source should be avoided when possible, as no single source has all the current barons on it. Tieonetwo (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I disagree, it's the most complete source. Seems to have all of them but unrecognised also listed, so it's a guide to watch for potential fakes Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::For somone to be listed they first need to be be made aware of the site befor the can join. Which leaves those who aren't aware of its existence having there legitimacy brought into question. with that in mind if you check the list on wiki against that on rolls you have baronys listed that aren't mentioned in the Roll, so how do I know they are legitimate if you only use one source which doesn't include them in it. Tieonetwo (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Charliez do you have a WP:RS proving your claim that "Scottish Barony Register is undoubtedly a reliable source—being recognised as such by the Lord Lyon"

The Barony register is not public and according to the organisation " that Lord Lyon currently will not refer to the Barony title in any Letters Patent he might issue." So it is a case by case basis if "the title" is recognized by the Lord Lyon.Nayyn (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with @Nayyn here as I just stumbled upon the mess that is this page today. @Charliez, the SBR is non-public, so we cannot link to it to back up a claim. The [https://www.courtofthelordlyon.scot/index_htm_files/Menking.pdf| Lord Lyon decision from 2014] - which you might be referring to - boiled down to "if you're in the SBR you can keep saying that you're in the SBR, and you can call yourself the holder of the barony, but not a baron". Hardly a ringing endorsement.

:Other websites like the Baronage of Scotland Roll that [https://roll.baronage.com/guidelines.pdf| use the SBR as an inclusion criteria] are thus equally dubious. The whole thing looks like nothing more than a pay-to-play scheme for people attracted to titles, one step above all those "own a piece of the moon" companies. Happy to be corrected, of course. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 15:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Forgot to mention: the bigger problem I have with the Baronage Roll is that it lists "unverified" claimants, and it's not explained what that means. That's an issue if that source is used 50+ times. What are the inclusion criteria for this list? — Arcaist (contr—talk) 16:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Older barons may have letters patent from the Lord Lyon making reference to the barony, but again, these letters patent will only sporadically be available online as a citable source. Where they are, I think they certainly qualify as a reliable source.

::As to newer barons, the Lord Lyon still recognises barons by granting special heraldic additaments (a baronial helmet). There is a statement from the Lord Lyon where he says: "The Scottish Barony Register is the only register for the Lord Lyon to have reference to in these matters (...) The practice is that ‘a person of skill’ (...) provides a report based on an examination of a prescriptive progress of title (...) This system has in practice operated efficiently and effectively in relation to baronies. I am content to follow this practice as long as the present Custodian is ‘a person of skill’."

::And the SBR is certainly a register of some standing in the legal community (see https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-65-issue-12/property-barony-register-in-new-hands/). So, I wouldn't doubt the quality of the data. The issue, as others have pointed out, is that it is not itself a publicly available database. Thus, it can only be cited as a source when quoted by other reliable sources or when a certificate issued by it is somehow available online. It would make the "Roll" a pretty good source – but only for those listed as "verified". It should not be used as a source where the entry is marked as "unverified", which I suspect it is (without going through the whole list). Charliez (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Just adding the source of the quote above, as it was requested earlier in the thread: https://www.courtofthelordlyon.scot/index_htm_files/Menking.pdf See section 5 (bottom of page 1) Charliez (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Charliez Thanks, good points. Yes, I saw those passages in the 2014 decision, although my reading is merely that at that point in 2014, they considered the SBR as efficient and effective. There's no guarantee that's still true, will remain true, and in any case this doesn't extend to the Baronage Roll.

:::Using the Roll is fundamentally flawed. Why would we take a third party's word that they're faithfully reproducing non-public data, when they seem perfectly happy listing "unverified" information alongside it, and charge money for it as well? We don't have any idea whether the data is reliable; after all, it's not the Roll that's referenced by the Lord Lyon. They could list anyone and everyone if they wanted.

:::To me, that source has to go completely, and anything in the table solely based on it as well. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 18:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::My understanding is that the Lord Lyon still relies on the SBR for determining jurisdiction and for granting baronial elements. There are several fairly recent articles on the SBR in Scottish law journals, and the SBR publishes an annual report. I am pretty confident in terms of the reliability of their data.

::::As you rightly point out, while this might make it a reliable source in terms of quality, it does not make it a suitable source for Wikipedia, as it is not public. Only occasionally will an extract from the SBR, or a letter patent from the Lord Lyon mentioning the barony, be available. As a result, we are left relying on other sources, judged according to the general WP:RS principles.

::::I agree with you that many of the sources cited in this article are substandard. They are either self-published or come from sources with inclusion criteria that are difficult to establish. Compared to these, the “Roll” seems relatively solid. It does specify its verification criteria, appears to be a community initiative, and seems to be non-commercial.

::::My only issue with the Roll as a source is the inclusion of “unverified” titles. This seems like an odd attempt to pad out the list; perhaps because there aren’t that many verified baronies. For those marked “unverified”, it is obviously wholly unsuitable as a WP:RS. That said, it is perhaps to their credit that these are clearly marked, as it makes it easy to identify entries that have not passed their verification process. Charliez (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Arcaist where are you seeing fees? [https://baronage.com/#contact About page] says it's "an honourable body owned by the members as a not for profit". They also explicitly recommend that organisations "do not recognise a title not verified on the Roll." Their [https://roll.baronage.com/guidelines.pdf inclusion guidelines] appear to set out transparent, publicly available verification criteria. While I agree that no single source should be relied on exclusively, the Roll does at least publish its editorial standards and clearly flag unverified entries—something not true of many sources currently cited. Their Mandate and Mission Statement also says that the initiative lobbies for formal recognition: specifically, for HRH The Baron of Renfrew (Prince William) to become patron, for a Royal Warrant to make it the official register, and to support the modern relevance of the Lord Lyon’s office. So while it may not yet be official, like the Peerage Roll or Baronetage Roll, it does appear to operate with transparency and editorial integrity—again, more than can be said for other commercial or self-published sources currently referenced. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kellycrak88 (and @Charliez to a lesser extent) The Roll is completely non-transparent. They don't state who runs the organization or who's on the 'Governing Council'. The latter literally says it's "led by key figures who guide the operations" above two AI-generated pictures. The website doesn't list a contact address, has no copyright information, their domain info is protected by a privacy company, and I can find neither it nor "The Baron's Charitable Trust" in company or charity registers. They can publish all the inclusion criteria they want, but we have no clue whether they enforce them, or who's supposed to enforce them. The same goes for their supposed status as a non-profit - we have zero evidence that's true.

:::::It's literally just a random website filled with non-verifiable information, and should be treated like any non-verifiable self-published source. It has no place here. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 20:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I noticed you just reverted my removal of the 'Heir' column, @Kellycrak88, with the argument being that notability is not necessary for inclusion in the list. That's not the point. The point is that all of this is completely unsourced and unverifiable. The list has 583 titles and a grand total of 5 references in the 'Heir' column, 3 of which are self-published and 2 are inaccessible on Burke's Peerage.

:::::Even if I follow your logic and accept the Roll as a reliable source (which it isn't, as I've shown above), Roll titles only make up 12 cases where an heir is listed.

:::::Unless you have a fantastic argument why a Wikipedia list should include what to me looks like information that could be completely made up, that column needs to go (along with much other information in this list). — Arcaist (contr—talk) 22:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::As mentioned, the other editor's point that a name on a list does not need be notable is valid, and see there is not consensus on removing the whole column so it shouldn't be deleted. That said, we can remove unsourced and add sources by adding those in. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not sure if you're missing my point or ignoring it. This is not about notability of individuals, but WP:V. The list contains almost 90 names in the 'Heir' column, with perhaps 10 being sourced or linked. The verifiability issues extend to many other parts of the list, but this is the most egregious: there's no reason to have a column with 90% unreliable information.

:::::::I will most definitely remove all unsourced info, and we're all free to add anything back in that can be verified. Until then I'd love your take on the whole Roll situation since you haven't addressed it. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 22:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I understand your concerns regarding WP:V, particularly around the ‘Heir’ column. For clarity, Wikipedia does not require notability for names in lists if the list itself is notable (see WP:LISTPEOPLE). Similar unsourced name lists exist in peerage and baronetage lists without being targeted for removal (for example not a single citation source is listed here for title holders or heirs). That said, I’ve already agreed to your request to remove unsourced heir names, but I would not support removing the column itself, since several entries are verifiable and additional sourced entries can be added by editors. Since you invited comment on the Roll, I’ve reviewed it again with an open mind, taking your points into account. The following observations may help clarify its status:

::::::::* The Roll is published by an honourable, non-profit, member-owned association, per its About page. It does list an Edinburgh contact address, a callback form, and email. A telephone number also appears in the domain’s WHOIS record.

::::::::* The site notes that meeting rooms are available by request at its Edinburgh location, and that a separate Charitable Trust for good causes—distinct from the Roll—is launching in September as a Scottish Registered Charity.

::::::::* Non-profit associations in Scotland are not required to register with Companies House unless incorporated. The absence of a company number is not unusual for civic or voluntary bodies.

::::::::* The Roll is unusually transparent: it clearly marks verified vs unverified entries, displays a public update timestamp (last: 4 June), and publishes [https://roll.baronage.com/guidelines.pdf inclusion criteria]. This meets the editorial standard of verifiability under WP:RS, especially when compared to closed, paywalled registers like Burke’s or the non-public Scottish Barony Register.

::::::::* I’ve personally cross-checked multiple Roll entries with Burke’s Peerage (I have a paid subscription), and the information matches consistently.

::::::::Lastly, prior editorial consensus acknowledged the Roll as an acceptable source where verification is explicit and inclusion criteria are public. This doesn’t override WP:V—but under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS, a non-commercial, independently governed, transparent source with editorial oversight can be treated as reliable—particularly for confirming factual list entries. I remain open to constructive discussion, but I believe removal of entries—or wholesale dismissal of the Roll—would be inconsistent with current policy and precedent. Kellycrak88 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Appreciate you engaging with my comments, @Kellycrak88, although you keep coming back to notability, which as I stated several times, isn't the main concern. It's that WP:BLP standards apply, and that requires strict WP:V criteria. It doesn't matter that there's another poorly-sourced list—that isn't an argument that this one should be as well; if anything, they both need a cleanup.

:::::::::Regarding your points about the Roll, I'm unconvinced:

:::::::::* I'm concerned that you would simply accept whatever the organization writes on their "About" page. You're presumably aware that anyone can write anything on a private website? The fact that the Roll calls itself independent, voluntary, and non-profit means absolutely nothing. I can find no third-party sources backing up these claims, and there is zero external reporting on the page itself.

:::::::::* The existence of an email address, a supposed office, and supposed meeting rooms, means absolutely nothing for the reliability of the source.

:::::::::* The [https://who.is/whois/baronage.com| phone number in the Whois entry] is in Iceland.

:::::::::* As I pointed out, nowhere on the entire page is a single name given of a person who works for, or leads, this organization. The organization also supposedly has "members", but these are not given either. Who is the "we" who are the purpoted keepers of the Roll?

:::::::::* Again, I'm concerned with your judgment that the Roll is "unusually transparent". That they say what their inclusion criteria are means nothing if this cannot be independently verified. Anyone can upload a PDF saying they have strict standards. They could be applying them, or not, and we have no way of knowing. Them marking some entries as "verified" or "unverified" only matters if we have confidence in the source itself. This is exacerbated by the fact that we don't know who's running the show, in contrast to Scottish Baronial Register, for example.

:::::::::* The fact that its info partially lines up with Burke's doesn't mean any other information is reliable, since—again—we don't know who's enforcing the supposed standards, and we already know the Roll seems content with including unverified information. And if you're using Burke's to verify information, then we should be using it, not the Roll.

:::::::::* I find it telling that the website doesn't list any prices for its services (despite offering in-person events, etiquette advice, and a "White-Glove Service for Online Notability"), and that any such information is conveniently hidden behind a callback.

:::::::::The Wayback Machine shows the domain for sale by a Chinese provider as recently as 2021, so it's not like this is a long-established source. As far as I can tell, you're the only one on this page using it consistently, and arguing strongly for it, so this is far from WP:Consensus.

:::::::::You were also the one who removed basically all references to the Scottish Baronial Register and Debrett's (both of which the Talk page does seem to consider reliable) and systematically made the Roll almost the sole source of the list back in April. At the time, you stated you {{Diff2|1286143497|"removed fake and unverifiable citations" (diff)}}, only to then replace almost all of them with the Roll.

:::::::::Your over-use of this one problematic source has significantly contributed to the issues with the article. Over 66% of the edits on this page are from you, despite only starting on in May 2024. I think it's time to slow down a bit and apply some stricter standards, rather than expand it at any cost. I note that this is feedback you've gotten before. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 12:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Arcaist I appreciate your detailed reply and the time you’ve taken to review the page and my contributions. I’m also glad you've looked into the edit history—because the page was in a very poor and fragmented state before, and much of the structural improvement and content standardisation over the last year came through collaboration with others and my own work. I stand by those efforts to bring the article into alignment with WP:V and WP:LISTPEOPLE standards.

::::::::::Regarding the Roll: you’ve raised concerns that deserve a clear and policy-grounded response.

::::::::::First, while you question the reliability of the Roll, it’s worth noting that another editor, @Charliez, who independently endorsed it as the most transparent and editorially sound source available, stating:

::::::::::

"The Scottish Baronage has done significant work to make reliable data available, particularly through the Roll of the Baronage... At present, the Roll appears to be the only source with both clear criteria for inclusion and transparent public verification policies."

::::::::::That is not my assertion—it was part of the original thread that initiated this discussion.

::::::::::Second, you suggest that because the Roll outlines its criteria on its own website, describes itself as non-profit, and uses public-facing infrastructure (contact details, timestamps, verification tags, etc.), it is inherently untrustworthy. But that line of argument would also disqualify many long-accepted sources used across Wikipedia, including clan societies, religious orders, and some academic institutes in niche fields. What matters under WP:RS is whether a source has an established editorial process, is independent of its subjects, and is not indiscriminately self-published for promotional use.

::::::::::The Roll:

::::::::::* Distinguishes verified from unverified entries (many genealogical sources do not) and appears to be the most complete open source available

::::::::::* Publishes inclusion criteria and update history

::::::::::* Is non-commercial, volunteer member-run, and not selling titles

::::::::::* Was accepted as a source on this very page through editorial consensus

::::::::::Third, on the comparison to Burke’s or the SBR: Burke’s is certainly reliable, but commercial and not up-to-date with all barons and behind a paywall, which limits public accountability. The Scottish Barony Register is not publicly searchable, and many baronies (e.g. those held over five or more generations) are not included there. The Roll, by contrast, is open to public inspection. If there are better transparent, up-to-date, public alternatives that meet WP:RS, I’m happy to consider them. But removing one source on suspicion, while leaving others with less transparency untouched, seems inconsistent with policy.

::::::::::On a personal note, your tone implies bad faith on my part—particularly with references to “over-use,” “only user defending,” and “feedback you’ve gotten before.” To be clear, I’m here to improve the article and support accurate, verifiable, and policy-aligned content. If you believe I’ve violated policy, feel free to raise that through the appropriate channels—but characterising editors rather than content breaches WP:NPA.

::::::::::Regarding the domain, when I checked it the registrar’s official WHOIS record—[https://www.spaceship.com/domains/whois/?domain=Baronage.com Spaceship]—lists a UK contact number. The Icelandic phone number you referenced appears to come from a third-party WHOIS lookup site. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thanks for the reply @Kellycrak88.

:::::::::::"[Y]ou suggest that because the Roll outlines its criteria on its own website, describes itself as non-profit, and uses public-facing infrastructure (contact details, timestamps, verification tags, etc.), it is inherently untrustworthy"—I said the exact opposite. Please read my posts carefully.

:::::::::::You're asserting that the Roll:

:::::::::::* "Distinguishes verified from unverified entries". We have no idea how this process works, what leads them to distinguish "verified" from "unverified" entries, and why they feel the need to include "unverified" entries in the first place. There is an easy answer, of course, which is that

:::::::::::* "appears to be the most complete open source available." This is the opposite of open source. It's a list administered by people we don't know, according to criteria we can't check, on a site which doesn't list its sources.

:::::::::::* "Publishes inclusion criteria and update history" We have no proof they adhere to their inclusion criteria. The process and the outcomes are not public.

:::::::::::* "Is non-commercial, volunteer member-run, and not selling titles" There is zero third-party verification that any of this is correct.

:::::::::::I'm well aware that other sources such as the SBR and Burke's are not publicly available or not free. Nevertheless, they are sources with an established track record and third-party recognition (e.g. the various Lord Lyon cases for the SBR), which isn't true for the Roll. The only place on the internet where the Roll is considered authoritative is in this list. A source isn't good just because it's available.

:::::::::::I see that you agreed something along these lines was necessary before, since you introduced the "Failed verification" tags into the table in May. At a minimum, we must now follow through properly and remove all information which even your preferred source doesn't verify. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 16:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::This new ‘roll’ is completely unreliable, is run by a single individual who refuses to identify himself publicly and who charges for inclusion. WentleyHall (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@WentleyHall as an editor that has relied on it for sourcing I have to disagree. Verification is stated to be free for life [https://baronage.com/#governing-council], and the site lists a Governing Council chaired by The Rt Hon The Lord Teynham. Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Is that David Roper-Curzon? [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22David+Roper-Curzon%22&sca_esv=8900ff206bef6d47&biw=1536&bih=730&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2021%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2025&tbm=nws This one]? Very "Rt Hon"... Fram (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Especially since the roll's membership perks include "[https://baronage.com/#page-7 White-Glove Online Notability: Enhance your digital presence, ensuring your title and achievements are accurately represented online.]"

::::::::::::::Whomever running this is not doing this "white glove" service for free... Nayyn (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Consensus for "Mr "?

Kellycrak claims there is consensus on this talk page for the use of "Mr " before the name of some title holders[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baronage_of_Scotland&diff=prev&oldid=1292322273]. I can see no evidence here of said consensus. Fram (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:It was my suggestion in @Charliez thread Sources and general Editorial Standards. The only disagreeing editor was the sockpuppet you reported. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::And no one agreed either, that isn't consensus. We don't divide people by putting "Colonel", "Doctor", "Professor" before their name if they are verified barons, and "Mr " when they aren't. There is no good reason to include "Mr" or "Mrs " anywhere. Fram (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is incorrect to nominate these images for deletion.

:These images were uniquely created, please read the licensing for coat of arms as quoted here:

:This image shows an emblazonment of a coat of arms granted by or under protection of the Lord Lyon Kings of Arms in Scotland. The usage of such symbols is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here. Even if this specific emblazonment (e.g. image) is free to use (per the license), its use is restricted according to the Lyon King of Arms Act 1692, Lyon King of Arms Act 1669, Lyon King of Arms Act 1672, Lyon King of Arms Act 1867 violation of which is subject to criminal penalty. Restrictions include but are not limited to:

:Unauthorised use of arms is a criminal offence. Without authorisation, arms cannot be borne, used, or displayed by anyone other than their rightful owner.

:This tag does not indicate the copyright status or the source of the attached work. A normal copyright tag and a source are still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

:English | Scots | +/−

:Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

:Digital representation new image of the coat of arms shield element from the full coat of arms. So not including the crest, supporters, motto or anything overlapping or outside the full coat of arms from the original.

:Created with permission of the Forum of the Baronage of Scotland (representing 60+ barons) for uploading to wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Kellycrak88 you're replying to a bot, the discussion is over at Wiki Commons at the link at the end of the bot's post.

::But just to be clear, are you saying you've received direct permission from the "Forum of the Baronage of Scotland" for each file? What's your affiliation with them? — Arcaist (contr—talk) 18:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::no affiliation, my email address is on my user page - they emailed me with permission Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::But they aren't the creators of these images, so why does it matter if they give you permission? Fram (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

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 [https://baronage.com/| 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 [https://baronage.com/#about 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 ([https://www.armorialregister.com/ 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 [https://debretts.com/frequently-asked-questions/ 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 [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2008/7/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true| 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1286143497 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 [https://baronage.com/#about 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1286143497 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard?markasread=337273859&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Daniel_Plumber-20250616022500-Arcaist-20250613133500 another user noted] there is a new [https://baronage.com/#governing-council 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/ 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): [https://debretts.com/directories/other-titles-2/the-feudal-baronies-of-scotland/ Debrett's], [https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/index the Scottish Register of Tartans], [https://www.registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage/ The Registry of Scots Nobility], and [https://officeofthelordlyon.blogspot.com/ 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, [https://officeofthelordlyon.blogspot.com/2021/10/new-grants-of-arms.html 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)

Incidents filed at Admin Noticeboard

This is to let everyone know that @Fram and myself independently (and at the exact same time it seems) filed ANI notices relating to this page:

— Arcaist (contr—talk) 10:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2025

{{edit fully-protected|Baronage of Scotland|answered=yes}}

For the Barony of Auchtermunzie, before a rogue super editor began playing around the site, my name was correctly stipulated as the baron, specifically "Fernando Gutierrez Eddy, Baron of Auchtermunzie". I would be grateful if you can once more correct the entry. If you require any proof of my ownership, I will be pleased to share my Letters Patent as provided by the Lord Lyon in 2004. Thank you. Fernando 2600:4041:57C7:DD00:4D7F:E056:32E6:877B (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:There is a source for this claim here that seems reliable so no objection from me. Not all Edinburgh Gazette links are acceptable but [https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/E-25893-1107-293 this one is sound].

:Although Fernando I would caution about COI editing as it is some of the reasons why this edit protection began in the first place.

:https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/E-25893-1107-293

:Nayyn (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::There is a "Jose" in that name on the source, not mentioned in this request. Please clarify? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes the attribution appears to be "Jose Fernando Gutierrez" Nayyn (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::@MSGJ Can we move him from the Infeft cell to the Incumbent cell? I don't want to try to do this and mess everything up... Brit-o-pedia (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, sorry! {{done}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)