Talk:Chlothar I

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chlothar I article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. I'm not particularly convinced with reasons for move (but then, for oppose as well), but at least it would bring the article in line with the other two. Duja► 09:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chlothar is more common in the scholarly (English) literature. All variant spellings should (and will) be mentioned, but this one ought to predominate. I have already moved the Clotaire II and Clotaire III articles. Srnec 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced; the policy on matters like this is: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Here that would mean Chloderic. I will check works of general reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point. Chloderic is certainly not the most recognisable English form. That would be Chlothar, as suggested. Clotaire it is certainly not. That's French. Works of general reference will vary, but Clothar, Chlotar, and Chlothar will predominate. Srnec 05:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence for the respective choices. — AjaxSmack 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support- Chlothar seems to command a bare plurality of usage in the results given below but Clothar or others would be fine if a definitive work on the subject is shown to use it. — AjaxSmack 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I think an effort to distinguish between the various persons of this name before Charlemagne would be pointless; they should be named consistently, so I have not attempted to differentiate them below.

This version of Gregory uses Clothar and Chloderic. Scholar.google.com reports almost entirely German results for Chlothar (and a physicist named Chlothar Roth), the few exceptions being mostly reviews of a translation from the German which calls Guntram of Burgundy Gunthchramn. Clothar would be acceptable; Clothaire may be less than desirable, although as commonly used in English as Clothar; but Chlothar and Gunthchramn are right out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. This is going to be more difficult than I presumed. When I noticed a comment stating that Chlothar was more common Clotaire, so why was Wikipedia using the latter? It agreed with my personal experience, so I moved to change things. Now I see that Clotaire is the form used in Encarta and Columbia, while Chlotar is the formed used in Britannica. A simple google test ignoring Wikimedia sites proves the prevalence of Chlothar over other forms. I do not trust this or the google scholars searches, however. In fact, a close look at your searches clearly shows that Chlothar predominates in English at Googles Scholars! A search for "Clotaire Franks", "Chlothar Franks", "Clothar Franks", "Chlotar Franks", "Clotar Franks", and "Clothaire Franks" clearly gives Chlothar the lead and there is no preponderance of foreign-language articles. Because there is so little available about the Merovingians in general works, it is impossible to determine what form is most common there. My experience tells me Chlothar, Clothar, or Chlotar. Scholarly English works are no different. Frankly (pun intended), I think that my original contention stands, though it is clearly a closer contest than I originally thought. Srnec 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to those searches, and you may convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Clotaire Franks" with 30, "Chlothar Franks" with 43, "Clothar Franks" with 30, "Chlotar Franks" with 28, "Clotar Franks" with 4, "Chlothaire Franks" with 4, and "Clothaire Franks" with 10. Chlothar beats the next closest alternatives by 13 hits. Try it for yourself without the "Franks" part and the results are the same, only then Clotaire comes up highest by far, though none of the links on the first three pages are relevant. Srnec 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely at "Chlothar Franks": Two of the results on the first page are the same book; one is the physicist; three are citations of Horst Ebling, Prosopographie der Amtstriiger des Merowingerreiches von Chlothar II; three more are in German; two are translations from the German; one in a Scandinavian tongue; and one is "... Chlothar fiának vallotta magát egy bizonyos Gundovald, aki erre hivatkozva ... viszont nem morális okokból volt fontos a frank királyság stabilizálása ... "; "Clothar Franks", and "Clotaire Franks" have very few false positives.

I really think that Chlothar is as markedly German as Clotaire is French; I'm tempted to settle for Clothar for now; how about it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same page at "Chlothar Franks"? None of those hits are anything but English and written by scholars whose books are the premier sources on the Merovingians. I am not sure what you're talking about. There are no false positives on the first page. Chlothar is the form the Germans use, but it is most close to the Chlotharius of the original sources. I have no desire to Germanise the English Wiki. Srnec 03:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the results have a few false positives (e.g., foreign language soures) but particularly "Clotaire Franks" -- with Clotaire showing up as an unrelated a given name and Frank as a guven name or Franks a surname. — AjaxSmack 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm looking at all the results for "Chlothar Franks". Using the whole sequence: 8 and 9 are the same book. 17 is irrelevant. 14 and 15 use Chlothar in citing Ebling's German paper, 25 cites a different German paper; 22 is in Hungarian; 33,39,40,and 43 are in German, 41 in (I think) Swedish. 16 and 20 are translations from the German, retaining the names of the criginal. 20 is Jussen, who uses Gunthchramn. A similar analysis of the hits for Clothar and Clotaire reveal a much smaller number of false positives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that you accused anybody of German nationalism. Sorry. I misunderstood your comment above to refer to the first page only. Also sorry. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that the results are still in Chlothar's favour. At the most, you removed fourteen hits for "Chlothar Franks" and it was already thirteen hits ahead. Unless the others have no false positives, Chlothar still wins. If we remove "Franks" from Clotaire it has far and away the most false positives and "Clotaire Franks" has quite a few false positives too. As to your comment on my talk page, I have no problem personally with any form (even Clotaire), but I do not see why Clothar is less jarring than Chlothar. In fact, I do not see why Chlothar is even jarring. It looks commonplace to me. I think the lack of general reference sources (of worthy calibre) covering the Merovingians is enough to force us to look at scholarly usage. My experience reading both general and specialist literature favours Clothar, Chlotar, and Chlothar over Clotaire and the last (Chlothar) more than the others, which is not surprising considering its proximity to the original Latin Chlotharius, giving way to Hlotharius and thence Lothair (French Lothaire, German Lothar). Srnec 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'd still prefer Clothar; but this is the CMedH usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chlothar and Chloderic are two entirely different names. One has the -heri suffix, and the other the -rich one. dab (𒁳) 17:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Ties

Based on the links, Ingund is the daughter of King Baderic, and Aregund is the sister of Ingund. Is Aregund also the daughter of Baderic?

By extension then if they are the daughters of Baderic, and Baderic is the brother of Berthar and Berthar is the father of Radegund, doesn't that make Radegund, 2nd wife of Chlothar I, a 1st cousin to Chlothar I's 3rd wife, Ingund, and 4th wife, Aregund? These relationships are not clearly articulated on the pages for any of this famly group so I am not sure I'm interpretting this correctly.

--Andaleen (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additions Oct 3

I am doing some major edits and will be slow to finish it. They will be cited. Thanks for the vigilant eyes, but don't worry this is a project Im passionate about so I will make sure to make it up to standards.DaltonCastle (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tuscany"

This section seems dodgy, as there was no polity called "Tuscany" at the time:

The murder of Amalasuntha, the daughter of Theodoric the Great and of Audofleda, sister of Clovis I, at the hands of the king of Tuscany, caused Chlothar to threaten invasion if he did not receive a payment. The agreement that averted the war was for the Tuscan king to send 50,000 gold coins. However, Childebert and Theudebert had it intercepted and stole the payment before it reached Chlothar and split it. Chlothar's treasury was still much larger than either's.[15]

On Amalasuntha's own page the story of her death is this:

Now queen, Amalasuntha made her cousin Theodahad partner of her throne (not, as sometimes stated, her husband, for his wife was still living), with the intent of strengthening her position. The choice was unfortunate, for Theodahad fostered the disaffection of the Goths, and either by his orders or with his permission, Amalasuntha was imprisoned in the island of Martana in the Tuscan lake of Bolsena, where on 30 April in the spring of 534/535 she was murdered in her bath.

So I'm not sure if the "King of Tuscany" being referred to in this article, the one who paid the tribute to Clohthar, is meant to refer to the Ostrogothic king Theodahad or to some unnamed noble (who would definitely not be a king) who governed Tuscany and who perhaps was more directly responsible for Amalasuntha's murder. It makes more sense to me that it would be Theodahad, since he seems to be the one who had her killed and anyway his kingdom would've been adjacent to the Frankish realm but Tuscany wasn't. But I thought I'd ask here before I changed it.

It's also worth noting that this paragraph is bracketed here by events that happened in the 540s, implying that's when Amalasuntha was murdered, but in Amalasuntha's own article it says that she died in the 530s. This paragraph should be moved to a more chronologically approrpriate spot. --Jfruh (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]