Talk:House of Iturbide

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility 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.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility

Merger

Considering the House of Habsburg-Iturbide is just another name for the House of Iturbide, and the content of the two articles is virtually the same, it seems there is no reason for two separate articles.Flyte35 (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same. READ first then think. --189.182.191.51 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official Imperial House of Mexico site Maximilian & Charlotte had by this stage accepted the fact that they could not have any children of their own so to secure the succession they adopted the heir of the original Mexican imperial house (obviously the House of Iturbide) and his cousin, thereby not only securing the succession but also legitimising their position in the eyes of the monarchist supporters of the Iturbide’s. These adopted Mexican princes would succeed Maximilian with the name of Habsburg-Iturbide. --189.182.191.51 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that website you linked to does not indicate that there are two separate and distinct dynasties, which would be the reason for two different articles. No source seems to indicate that. Furthermore, this is just a matter of simplifying things; the content of the two articles is very similar.

Also, please stop removing the tags. While the merger issue seems to be provoking a lively debate (well, between the two of us), even without the merge tag, the other tag deals with sourcing. The article still needs additional citations for verification. Most of the article remains unsourced.Flyte35 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want a text quoted like this .. "They are not the same, they are two different houses", let me tell you that any royal house will explain it like that, according to the official site, the first dinasty was successed by adoption, they are not the same dinasties or houses, because they were two different coronations, they weren't crowned heirs to the throne.

And please stop adding the tags only because you are not agree, there's an official source, if you add that tag even though there's a official source, you can be reported. --189.182.191.51 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure [1] really counts as an official source, but that's not really the point. The reason the Source Needed tag should remain up is because only the first line of the article is sourced. The rest of the article has no references.Flyte35 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source tag is fine I feel. The merger I'm not entirely sure about, they do appear to be houses of two distinct phases and could potentially be extended to full article length. A bit like there being a page for Saxony-Anhalt but also one for Free State of Saxony and Free State of Anhalt. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the rest of the article is referenced. If there's something you "think" is not, you should use this tag Template:Citation needed, no the other tag, because the article already has sources. --187.146.57.141 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned that, as a result of edits made by anonymous user 189.182.191.51, the content of the two articles now appears very different. This is despite the fact both appear to be based on the same Web site, a Web site that doesn't really draw a clear distinction between the houses. Nevertheless, there appears to be opposition to the merger proposal, that's fine. Two articles it is.

Re: references. The second paragraph of this article has no references. The entire History section of House of Habsburg-Iturbide has no references.Flyte35 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were separate houses, wouldn't they have different coats of arms?Flyte35 (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

Actually, based on the founder's bio (Agustín de Iturbide) the reference to Basque ethnicity are ok on this page by the looks of it. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respective references alreadry added you can't just go away and add tags just because you are not agree with it. --189.182.174.8 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. I didn't add any tags, I just said that when the ref tag was added, it was justified. Looks ok for refs now. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Iturbide" should NOT have an accent

"Iturbide" appears with an accent on the "u": not only on this page: also on other pages about the family members. I can assure you it should NOT have an accent. Best regards from Mexico City! --correogsk or Gustavo (Eritrocito or Heme aquí) 19:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian???

In what universe is Don Maximilian I the Final ruler of the House of Iturbide, as stated in the box at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.132.89 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide was merged into this article after deletion discussion. Consensus was that subject was not notable. An editor found at least one article about Götzen-Iturbide, however. Some of the information may be worth adding to this article. Flyte35 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Iturbide. 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/20050305022633/http://www.casaimperial.org/ to http://www.casaimperial.org/

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) 11:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House of Iturbide. 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:

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) 07:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of continuity in the section about the first Mexican empire

In the first paragraph, Iturbide becomes emperor. In the second paragraph, he is on a ship for Italy. There is no explanation how this came about. I realize there is a separate article about the first Mexican empire, but if the current article serves any purpose, I think it needs a little bit more information. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]