Talk:William I, Count of Hainaut

message: I note this deletion of a recently demanded and added source footnote. It won't be apparent from the edit but this was done as a reaction to a discussion between me, who added the source, and User:DrKay who deleted it, on the Template talk page for the "Ahnentafel" template where a source was demanded. The background on this article is:
*The template was tagged as unsourced and then later deleted, on the basis that no one had added a footnote. I reinserted it, and added a source. 
*I also used this case as an example on the Template talk, where I raised a concern about largescale deletions of ancestry templates despite there being obvious open questions about how to handle it best - creating a kind of race between deleters apparently trying to create a WP:FAIT, and anyone who wants to really address verification concerns. DrKay noted there (several days ago) that the source I added was self-published. I responded there that it was a well-known expert's well-known publication, which could be discussed at WP:RSN if needed. There was no reply to my explanation or offer.
I also pointed out that...
::1. The original sourcing of the table appears to actually be on the article, in the sources at the bottom of the page. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln will certainly have this information. Probably also Moriarty, The Plantagenet Ancestry of King Edward III and Queen Philippa. (If someone has a copy of these, please confirm, and we can put these in the footnote and close this discussion.) It is particularly clear in this case that these two sources must relate to exactly the type of information that was deleted.
::2. It is not an appropriate use of any version of the "unreferenced" tag to delete material when it appears that the source is actually mentioned, but just not in a nice format. (It is also certainly not a demand of WP:V, in fact it is clear conflict with the spirit of the best practice advised by WP:V and related policies, to delete information which the deleter knows to be verifiable, which has apparently been the case with many table deletions I've looked at.)
As a direct result of me making this second point 5 days later, DrKay has taken some revenge actions against me (although I actually never made one of these Ahnentafels as far as I recall). One is that DrKay changed vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose" on the template talk, and another is this citation deletion. 
:PROPOSED ACTION. Unless anyone can come up with a good reason, I intend to add the citation back. If anyone has time to find better sources, that is wonderful. If necessary it can also be discussed at WP:RSN, or any forum required. Overall though, I think the background to the deletion is that it is disruptive editing, and in conflict with WP policies in several ways.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the natural conclusion of this would be to just accept a 4-generation ancestry table, which is perfectly adequate for all purposes and has already been offered as a compromise on multiple talk pages. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for being honest. (And no, I am not being sarcastic.) Frankly, it means you did the deletion in order to hold WP:V hostage and get a certain format which you prefer. OTOH, concerning the format of this table, this can and should be discussed. I prefer case by case. See for example my discussion with Surtsicna here. But the core content aims of verifiability and having good quality informative articles should in any case never be used as bargaining chips or smokescreens. That is my concern, not the number of generations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bargaining chip or a smokescreen. It is a real concern. The bargaining chip is the 4-generation compromise, not the other way around. DrKay (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really arguing that deleting a 5th generation always, in every case, removes a "real concern" with the verifiability of everyone's ancestry? (This "bargaining" strategy has apparently been used on hundreds or even thousands of articles?) In this particular case where we have sources, and the person involved has a very well-known ancestry, I would honestly be interested to hear what real concern you have with Schwennicke, Moriarty, and Richardson. Which great great grandparents do you believe to be unverifiable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this. DrKay (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thank you. IMHO opinion is better to just use words like those ones. This is therefore the type of "due weight" opinion where Wikipedians can have reasonable differences of opinion. FWIW, personally I like having the option of >4 generations available for some types of historical people, but it is not my big concern. In this case here, I find it a shame to delete the mention of Baldwin of Constantinople for example, but I am not overly concerned about it. In any case what do we do about the footnote/unreferenced tag in this article? Can we re-add Richardson? Perhaps you have a copy of one of the other sources you can access to check them? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They're the same words I've been using all along, as anyone can see by searching through my comments at the template talk page. Every comment I've made there is consistent with that view. I'm hardly going to complain if you now implement that view at this page, with or without Richardson. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source removal by DrKay