Talk:Eugenio Lascorz

Eugenio Lascorz has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 10, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 December 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Basque family name

First of all, I haven't found any sources where such thing was affirmated, for as long as I know, the Lascorz have always been related to Sobrarbe or at least the Province of Huesca. This is Aragon and not the basque country, not even Navarre. Also the point "the counts of Ribagorza, who were Lords of Lascorz in the 1100s" should be provided with sources, as it is interesting from the historical and toponymical view, because Lascorz still exists the present day as a small village in southern Ribagorza, and we'd like to know if there's any quotation of it's existance (of the village itself) before the 16th century. --Lascorz (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eugenio Lascorz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050212011509/http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/lascaris.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/lascaris.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eugenio Lascorz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 17:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will start reviewing shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Text

I wanted to review this because I find the article very intriguing, and the right mix of unusual and interesting. A few comments here:

"His older siblings were Lorenzo (1877–1900) and Josefina (1881–1956)." To help clarify for those unfamiliar with the names, I'd reword to say something like: "He had an older brother, Lorenzo (1877–1900), and sister Josefina (1881–1956))."

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lascorz believed his descent from the Laskarids could grant him a claim to the throne of the newly proclaimed Kingdom of Greece..." This refers to the pre-1924 Kingdom of Greece right? If so I don't think "newly proclaimed" is the right word choice here, as it had been around for nearly 80 years by this point (I'm inferring the actions in this section are dating to the 1920s or thereabouts). I would remove "newly proclaimed" as a result.

I was thinking "newly proclaimed" relative to old Byzantium, but yes I can see that this would be confusing. I've removed "newly proclaimed". Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1946, he attempted to expand his "Sovereign and Imperial Order of Constantine the Great" and his own order of Saint Helena into international organisations." Is there any mention of when these "orders" were founded? Would be good to note that if possible.

I don't think there is; the New Byzantium site claims both orders were founded by Constantine the Great in the 4th century (1, 2), but that's obviously not true since the Romans and later Byzantines did not have knightly orders. The Constantinian order was founded in the 17th century by an older group of "Byzantine claimants", but it is unclear when Lascorz began to claim to be its head. The Helena order had to have been made up by Lascorz but since he claimed it was ancient, it would be difficult to determine when. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lascorz made no intellectual contributions to the legal world during his years as an attorney and lawyer." To me, this is contrasted with the later note that he served as a military judge, and indeed would seem to me to be something that should be mentioned earlier on. I'm not familiar with the Spanish legal system in the slightest, but would imagine that to get to that position he would either have to have been somewhat decent as a lawyer, or had the right connections to get there. The reference to Lascorz being a Francoist is also something I feel should be introduced there, and not first brought up in the "Hidalguía controversy" section."

Yeah, he probably was quite good at his job. The "no intellectual contributions" is to say, as is elaborated shortly after, that he spent his time working (rather than whatever else a lawyer might do); perhaps this could be rephrased or removed entirely, what do you think? I've moved the portions on Franco to this paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Because of the controversy, any texts discussing Eugenio Lascorz and his family in the 1950s were either for or, more commonly, against them." This sentence on its own stands out to me. I feel it could be moved to the end of the preceding paragraph (after the discussion of the interview with Teodoro), though it would have to be re-written to flow better. Something like: "Throughout the rest of the 1950s, any references to Lascorz and his family were split between supporting, or more commonly, opposing him."

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the above in mind, did the controversy over his claims die out in the 1950s, or did he continue to be mentioned in the press later on? I saw reference to a biography published in 1989, but was there anything else said about him after the 1954 events? Even if not it would be good to note that interest in him subsided by a certain point, or continued until wheneve.

There is not as much info on Lascorz after he was exposed, probably partly because of being exposed as a fake and partly because of his illness. I've added two short paragraphs previously left out information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...where Christian faith, Western thought, and Greek civilization will continue to survive." Change the "will" to "would". As Teodoro is dead now he can't really keep it going now, but as he wanted to it can work with that tense.

True; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

For the Spanish language sources, it would be good to provide an English language translation of the titles. Use the "trans-title" within the citation for this.

Added. The title of the second one sounds a bit strange in English but it is what it means as far as I can tell. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes both "new-byzantium.org" and "European Royal Houses" reliable sources?

New-byzantium.org is definitely not a reliable source in general since it is the Lascorz family's own website. I've removed one of the references to it since it was unnecessary; the remaining four only cite information that actually can be reliably verified by this site (that Lascorz rendered his title as "Emperor of Constantinople" instead of "Byzantine Emperor", that he is Eugene "II" because of a supposed previous Eugene, as one of the sources for what Teodoro's New Byzantium idea was, and that Eugene "III" maintains his grandfather's claims). This info isn't really anywhere else and I feel that they are interesting to include. Since these specific instances are not affected by the inherent bias of the source perhaps it is passable to cite it where it is cited now? If not, I can remove it, but I will have to remove some of the info as well.

The article on European Royal Houses is written by Guy Stair Sainty, a prolific author on European nobility and heraldry, but now that you bring it up I am not sure that this source actually qualifies as reliable per WP:RS. It's a shame since it references quite a lot, so I suppose I'll have to look and see if I can justify it or search for an alternate source for what it cites. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the biography by Castro y Tosi is mentioned as "very favourable" to Lascorz, would it be of any use for adding information to the article?

I can't track down a copy online but I'm not sure it would be of a lot of use either way; whereas I think the New Byzantium site can be used to cite what it currently cites (per my attempt at a justification above), Castro's book suffers the same bias as that site with its title flat-out calling Eugenio a "prince of Byzantium". Not sure how reliable biographical information in it would be. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there was mention to some Spanish newspaper articles that exposed Lascorz, and his own family's response. Are you able to access any of those? It would be nice to have them if possible.

I agree that it would be nice; I've tried searching but have been unable to find them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I don't do a lot with image rights, but I will note that the one used here, which I see you uploaded, does have a copyright notice, albeit with a caveat. Just take caution on that to ensure it is a legitimate use.

Yes, the image is cropped and scaled down to a quite small size. As I understand it, it falls under fair use (applying the same logic as how Wikipedia deals with movie posters and such), since no free to use image exists of Lascorz. It could be removed but I think it is nice to have an actual image of the person when possible. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a really captivating article on a rather unusual person. Once the above are addressed the article should be ready for promotion. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the work here, and your justification for the sources and image, so will be happy to pass the article. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]