could this profile become 'notable'

Question

Sir William Cope 2nd Baronet, MP for Banbury, - Cope-1401

Comments

Using the standard of "must have a Wikipedia page", he would qualify.
As things go, though, he doesn't appear to have done anything terribly notable — but he does have that Wikipedia page.

---

Thanks Melanie

---

Just write him up a terrific bio!  

---

A bit of info in the Gentleman

---

Basic eligibility requirements:

1. the notable person is at least 18-years-old, and
2. there is a Wikipedia article about them, thereby showing that they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and
3. the Wikipedia article appears in at least three languages, and
4. the Wikipedia article, in more than one language, includes information about at least one nuclear family member (parent, sibling, spouse, or child), and
5. we are not aware that the notable person would prefer to keep the information we are putting on WikiTree private.

---

Those are the requirements for LIVING Notables to have open profiles.  Not for those who are Notable.

---

While Wikipedia does have a lot of info on a lot of people (historic and notable), Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be considered the primary qualifying source as to whether-or-not an individual is "notable". Take James Joseph Balukevich, for example... first, do a Google search on that name in parentheses and all you'll get are two results, both of which are from Find a Grave. The name "Balukevich" appears nowhere in Wikipedia. Still, he most certainly is considered notable... one would have to search long and hard to learn about him, though, because those who write Wikipedia pages and other online sources that people like to think of as reliable have passed him right over.

On 15 Nov 1989, Hon. Mervyn M. Dymally of California, in the U.S. House of Representatives, honored the notable that I mentioned, James Balukevich, beyond the honors that James had already earned. He was named "National Boxing Goodwill Ambassador" for the U.S. for his lifetime service to the sport. Prior to that date, he was inducted into the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame, and prior to that he was the founder of the D.C. Boxing Hall of Fame. He was a Kentucky Colonel, an Hon. Lieut. Col., ADC, in the Alabama State Militia, an Admiral of the Georgia Navy, a recipient of The Order of the Long Leaf Pine, an Ambassador of Good Will of the Cherokee Nation, a Deputy Marshall of Dodge City, and much, much more.

So, while Wikipedia can definitely serve as a good source from which to start, requiring a notable to have a Wikipedia page before being recognized as the notable individual that he or she is really doesn't make sense.

Heck, check out this page on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Johnson_(film)  . Some of y'all might actually remember the movie (it was a huge hit back in the 70's and early 80's. In the "Cast" section, notice that Delle Bolton's name isn't hyperlinked. She co-starred alongside Robert Redford, but she doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Does that mean she isn't "notable"? Not at all. It merely means that she doesn't have a Wikipedia page. (BTW - Delle is my 2nd cousin)

---

The requirement is "meets Wikipedia's standards for notability", not "has a Wikipedia page". Under those standards, members of national, provincial, and state/territory level legislative bodies are automatically presumed to be notable:

The following are presumed to be notable:

• Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.^[13] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

---

The requirement is "meets Wikipedia's standards for notability", not "has a Wikipedia page". 

commented by C Handy 

.

I know this, and I have begged for the monthly post for Notables to not say "must have", and instead to say "would qualify for".
All the time on g2g I see the "must have a Wikipedia page" to qualify for a Notables sticker, and fear the rules will fall on my head if I repeatedly make the same argument against it.

At the same time, some folk with Wikipedia pages did nothing much at all except win an Olympic medal, while other folk who did notable things in their own sphere have no WP page.  Someone who was recognised by their federal government, or the (late) Queen for notable services to their communities, is surely worthy of being recognised as Notable on this website, but all the time I see "they don't have a WP page, so 'no'".

In the case of this Baronet, he has a WP page, so qualifies here for the sticker and categorisation as Notable, but because his WP page is so very sparse, I suggested filling his profile here with as much other detail as possible.

/climbs down off soapbox/

---

In the case of this Baronet, he has a WP page, so qualifies here for the sticker and categorisation as Notable

He'd qualify anyway, because he was a Member of Parliament (hence my referencing that part of Wikipedia's notability guidelines). 

---

I will, funny, I was thinking the same thing. Thanks

---

Thanks .....

---

Thanks Heather...

Answer 1

Just looking at the name, as styled... He was a Baronet, which is a rank in the nobility. If you head over to the Notables category, there is a subcategory titled "Aristocracy and Nobility" which is a subcategory to which he should be included. Since "Aristocracy and Nobility" is a subcategory of "Notables", it goes to reason that any person that qualifies for addition to the subcategory is indeed a Notable.

Comments

Baronet isn’t a title of nobility, though.

Are all nobles & aristocracy really automatically ‘notable’ on Wikitree? Wow. I didn’t know that.

Whilst the commoners have to have ‘done something’. The way of the world, as always!*

(*I’m not being entirely serious.)

---

Thanks Roy...

---

L Felix: What makes you think that "Baronet isn't a title of nobility"?

Baronet ranks between those of Baron and Knight, both of which are titles of nobility. A Baronet most certainly is a title of nobility and the title is hereditary.

QUOTE: "The precise quality of this dignity is not yet fully determined, some holding it to be the head of the nobiles minores, while others, again, rank Baronets as the lowest of the nobiles majores, because their honour, like that of the higher nobility, is both hereditary and created by patent." [Source: William J. Thoms (1844). The Book of the Court (2nd edition). London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, p. 132.]

Here's some really wonderful info on Baronet if you need to further research the topic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baronet

As far as all nobles and aristocracy being automatically notable on Wikitree... are all genetic descendants of the Y-Adam chromosome automatically human? The entire purpose of grouping and sub-grouping has, historically, been to categorize first into the broadest category to which a person or object belongs, then to group into more narrowly defined categories without removing from the primary category. Wikitree chose to sub-categorize nobles and aristocracy beneath notables, so "yes" all persons belonging to the nobles and aristocracy subcategory are, by default established within the categorization hierarchy at Wikitree, considered notable.

---

‘Lesser Nobility’ - we don’t really have that in England. I think that may be someone being kind.

Baronets & Knights are commoners.

If you are a Baronet your ancestor could very likely have been part of James I’s money-making scheme (same with many knights from that period), so no wonder they are ranked as commoners (I can imagine it would have rocked the boat if they had been allowed to join the peerage.)

It was just an observation. Being an MP should make him a notable anyway.

---

L Felix, please go back and re-read the quote from Thoms which I shared. There is no exact determination as to whether a Baronet is at the top of the "nobiles minores" (minor nobility) or the bottom of the "nobiles majores" (major nobility). In either case, however, since minor and major nobility make up the whole of the noble class, the Baronet is a noble.

As for your comment about knights being "commoners"... you've clearly got some research to do. Depending upon the country within which the person was knighted, as well as the Order, knights were either members of the gentry class or the noble class. Though viewed as "commoners" by the British legal system, knights are categorized generally in the minor nobility. Ergo, they are considered nobles.

Britain does not hold a monopoly on who is and is not considered of the noble class. "Ridder", Dutch for "knight",  is a hereditary noble title in the Netherlands; "Chevalier", French for "knight", is a hereditary noble title in Belgium. Other countries have knights who are ennobled upon investiture, thereby making them of the noble class.

---

The man in question was from England.

Baronet is basically like an hereditary knight, I guess gentry. And, I suppose they would be thought of as nobles, but it isn’t a title of nobility.

I wasn’t trying to argue with you, Roy, just pointing it out.

There’s so much attention given to ‘aristocracy’ and lords of the manor on here (& other sites), some of it gobbledegook, that the actual real people who lived get lost.  (And, I do genuinely think it’s sad that you can be classed as notable just for being born into a particular family; or for being a carpet knight.)

And no, I don’t know that much about knights in The Netherlands & Belgium etc. I agree.

Sorry, Megan, for hijacking your thread, Sir William Cope does appear to be notable. (Even if he was only a Baronet… I’m going to get flagged!)

---

L Felix: If you get flagged, it won't be by me. I always enjoy good discussion and debate as long as everything stays "on-topic". Thanks for the discussion and debate.