Talk:Lady Juliana (Agra)
 | A fact from Lady Juliana (Agra) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 December 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Legend[edit]
This article is presenting legend as fact. I'm afraid it's a poor advertisement for Wikipedia that this article is linked from the front page in its current state. There's a raft of citations to lend a veneer of credibility - but when you're citing newspaper columns and the theories of historical novelists as sources for 16th century history, you're going to go wrong quickly. The scholarly source Zaman (2012) treats these claims with scepticism, particularly the story about a secret son of the Bourbon dynasty making his way to India. SpaceHamsterBoo (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is a difficult subject with conflicting sources. Can you make or suggest some changes please? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest the most important change is to qualify the statements in the lead. The lead currently consists of blunt assertions of facts about persons whose very existence is most questionable. I'm afraid I can't immediately think of how to do it without running into the "weasel words" problem, but what's needed is to find a way to alert readers from the start that they are reading about figures whose historicity is very shadowy. SpaceHamsterBoo (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've updated the lead along these lines. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I think it's a better reflection than the previous lead of the big historical question marks over this area. SpaceHamsterBoo (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest the most important change is to qualify the statements in the lead. The lead currently consists of blunt assertions of facts about persons whose very existence is most questionable. I'm afraid I can't immediately think of how to do it without running into the "weasel words" problem, but what's needed is to find a way to alert readers from the start that they are reading about figures whose historicity is very shadowy. SpaceHamsterBoo (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Title[edit]
I think Lady Juliana of Agra would be more appropriate title according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). I am OK with current title but other editors can take a note of naming convention and change it if they feel it more appropriate. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is that the common name? My recollection is that the sources just say Lady Juliana making the disambiguation necessary. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy:. Lady Juliana is common name but of Agra is commonly used way to disambiguation according to WP:NCNOB instead of (Agra). (Agra) would not be understood by readers because most would not understand it as a place. -Nizil (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can you quote sources using the words "Lady Juliana of Agra"? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy:. Lady Juliana is common name but of Agra is commonly used way to disambiguation according to WP:NCNOB instead of (Agra). (Agra) would not be understood by readers because most would not understand it as a place. -Nizil (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)