Jump to content

Talk:Frederick William IV of Prussia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lutheran or Reformed or Evangelical

[edit]

You state "Despite being a devout Lutheran...." - this is incorrect. Ever since Johann Sigismund publicly accepted the Calvinistic (Reformed) faith on December 25th, 1613, the subsequent rulers of Brandenburg/Prussia have, for the most part, been faithful to their Calvinistic roots.

In fact, his predecessor, Friedrich Wilhelm III created the Prussian Union church. This new church was simply called the "Evangelical Church" and the terms Lutheran and Reformed were banned by the king in the early 1830s. Thus, under Friedrich Wilhelm III (in Prussia), the Lutheran church and the Reformed church were banned and the only state sanctioned church was the new union or Evangelical church.

Much had been written on this subject and details to verify this should be easy to find.

Lutherans in Pommern, Silesia, Brandenburg that disagreed with the kings edicts continued to practice their Lutheran faith and were arrested and fined. Their Lutheran pastors were thrown in jail. These Lutherans who disagreed with the king were eventually called "Altlutherische" or "Old Lutherans". They finally decided that the only way they could continue to practice their faith was to leave Prussia. From 1835 to the early 1850s, some 5,000 Prussian citizens stated on their government application papers that they wanted to leave Prussia due to religious reasons. Those "Old Lutherans" that came to America became the foundation for the different branches of the Lutheran church found in America today.

When Friedrich WIlhelm IV became king one of his first measures was to retract the toughest of Altenstein's laws and to release the Lutheran clergy still in prison and return them to their parishes. By 1843, the non-Union Lutherans were tolerated as a legitimate private organization of Lutheran brethren. Still they were required to pay surplice fees to the pastors of the United church, and to contribute money to the church and parsonage buildings. They were refused permission to call themselves the "Lutheran church" or to even call their buildings of worship "churches." Still, it was not until 1908 that they were allowed, on the basis of a law modifying the general concessions of 1845, to call themselves "Verein der evangelische altlutherischen Kirchengemeinden" (Association of Evangelical Old Lutheran Church Congregations).

Thus, although Friedrich Wilhelm IV did grant a few concessions to the Lutherans in Prussia, he was by no means a "Lutheran" himself. He was likely raised in the Reformed faith, and during his rule he preserved the Union church his father worked so hard for.

Tom

Wrong Name

[edit]

Why is his name listed in an English equivalent first, and then German in parentheses, almost like the original is English? Can someone fix his name please? 112.198.98.30 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Louise, this again. If you'd care to look at the German Wikipedia, that is exactly how it is done with British monarchs there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But British Royals are German...112.198.98.30 (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked at the German wiki, and they use English names for the English royals. Changing German historical figures to English names is a form of racism and vandalism.73.220.34.167 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not. Otherwise you would have found that you are wrong. See my post on Talk:Frederick William III of Prussia for examples. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Translating German names into English is offensive and tantamount to cultural genocide. I am glad they have the original German names listed in parentheses. However, the article's title is clearly wrong. And this IS the place to discuss it! How do we report people like you committing vandalism?2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural genocide?!?! Why don't you let me as a German from former Prussia decide what I consider cultural genocide? For crying out loud... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the guidelines for names in the encycloypaedia: ("Wikipedia: Naming conventions (use English)"): The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources ... Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by METRANGOLO1 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederick William IV of Prussia. 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) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Those that supported the move believed that the target is concise enough while still satisfying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCROY. Those that opposed the move point that the current titles are already WP:COMMONNAME; thus I see no consensus in support or against the move. Since the current title is the last stable title, nothing happens. (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 17:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Frederick William IV is unambiguous. Frederick William III is already treated as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And Frederick William II is almost surely the primary topic based on pageviews [1]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to request moving the dab page explicitly. I have added it. Srnec (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Silesia has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] Walrasiad (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Walrasiad’s COMMONNAME claim notwithstanding, Opposition is not policy-based. While article titles should be recognizable out of context, that’s only to those who are familiar with the topic. A possible ambiguity does not matter if the use of the name in question is unique or primary, which is the case in each of these. The disruptive and pointless practice of adding disambiguation to a name in a title “for clarity” or any reason other than disambiguation needs to end. —В²C ☎ 12:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As others rightly note, showing the country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear. Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers (which policy instructs is our priority), is out of step with other reputable encyclopedias like Britannica which specifically includes a clarifier with the title[17], and does not seem to serve any purpose other than to satisfy a specialist editorial desire for maximal conciseness. Also, just to be very clear about this: Wikipedia nowhere asserts that the most concise unambiguous title is necessarily the best one. If it were, we’d have US, UK, Cézanne, Obama, 103rd Congress, DTs, Bothell, AI, and countless other un-encyclopedic titles. The change to NCROY that prompted this and other contentious RMs was ill-considered and should be revisited. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one disputes the guidance for serving readers. That’s why we’re all here. The claim that one title serves readers better is a claim anyone can make for whichever title they support. It’s merely a highly subjective opinion. My own position is readers are served just as well by either title, so that guidance is irrelevant here. If it were true that readers were served better with unnecessary disambiguation in titles like these currently have, then we’d have to drastically change policy and almost every title on WP. —В²C ☎ 19:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the argument made:
  • As others rightly note, showing the country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear. An unsubstantiated opinion. I do not see where anybody here has made such an argument let alone others (plural).
  • Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers ... Unsubstantiated opinion.
  • ... is out of step with other reputable encyclopedias like Britannica ... Britannica is but one encyclopedia (not plural). There are few online encyclopedias that would be considered WP:RSs but Oxford Reference would use Frederick William II (1744–97) in two English language publications. The one actual example given is refuted in plural.
  • A argument falling to other stuff arguments would cite exceptions to using the shorter titles: US, UK, DTs, AI, Cézanne, Obama, Bothell and 103rd Congress. Other stuff arguments lack validity unless such examples are directly analogous and reflect best practice. Simply presenting these examples, as done, is not a cogent argument. On the use of abbreviations as article titles, WP:AT would specifically refer to WP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms in page titles which states: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title - ie, we are being told by WP:P&G that we generally prefer the expanded names as article titles over abbreviations. For the names of people, WP:CONCISE (at WP:AT) would state: ... given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision (with a specific link to WP:NCP). We are told by WP:P&G that we generally use both the given name and surname of a person in an article title. Bothell, Washington is preferred by the naming convention WP:USPLACE at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is specifically recognised by WP:AT. 103rd United States Congress is a numeric sequence consistent with the parent article United States Congress, where Congress is another topic and, while there may not be a need to disambiguate the 103rd Congress, there is a need to disambiguate other congresses (eg 1st Congress). There is, therefore, a strong logical argument to maintain consistency across the numeric series of titles. For one reason, a common pattern facilitates the infobox template coding to link to preceding and succeeding congresses in the infobox.
These other stuff examples are a fallacious argument by false analogy.
  • Also, just to be very clear about this: Wikipedia nowhere asserts that the most concise unambiguous title is necessarily the best one. At WP:TITLEDAB (part of WP:AT): According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is specifically referred to at WP:PRECISION (part of WP:AT). It would tell us that while a term preferred for a title may be ambiguous, if there is a primary target for this otherwise ambiguous term, then the preferred term should nonetheless be used for the article which is the primary target. The arguments being made here are that these shorter titles are either unambiguous or that they are reasonably the primary target. WP:OVERPRECISION is an alternative shortcut for WP:PRECISION at WP:AT. It gives the example, ... Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough ... Frederick William # of Prussia is a very similar form to Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Just as Mother Teresa is precise enough, Frederick William # is also precise enough because these titles are the primary topics. WP:AT is clearly asserting that we should only apply sufficient precision to resolve ambiguity between titles of other articles, notwithstanding some exceptions that are given at WP:AT or acknowledged naming conventions and like. Names such as this with the pattern X of Y exist because of a somewhat mandatory naming pattern that existed at WP:NCROY which was in conflict with the policy at WP:AT and actual practice. This inconsistency has now been remedied by this RfC.
In summary, there is no substance to the arguments made. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the arguments are quite exploded. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s quite a wall of text. A few points:
  • That readers benefit from the addition of the country is indeed a point being made by various commentators across the many current RMs taking place that address the inclusion of countries in the titles of articles about monarchs. That is the point I was making, as you’re welcome to see. Pedantic gotchas aren’t helpful.
  • How we balance our criteria is indeed a matter of opinion, which per WP:CRITERIA we express through discussion as a means of finding consensus. Policy doesn’t say there’s a single valid weighting, and shouting down others’ as “unsubstantiated opinion” is again not an aid to productive discussion.
  • Re recognizability, we aim to make titles recognizable to those familiar but not necessarily experts in the area. I’m one such person, and without the country I wouldn't have been able to tell you that (say) Charles X and Charles XI were from different nations, or that this article relates to a monarch of Prussia. In all such cases I see the inclusion of the country as yielding a better title that better serves the interests of readers than we’d get without it.
  • Your blocks about PT are unclear and don't rebut the fact that redirecting from a more concise unambiguous title to a longer one is something we do in innumerable articles when we agree there are reasons to do so. (In fact you seem to affirm it.) I contend we likewise have such reasons here.
Cheers, ╠╣uw [talk] 15:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give a simpler summary without the detailed evidence. Of the examples given where a longer name is preferred, save the 103rd Congress, there are specific conventions listed in P&G that would direct us to use the longer name in these cases. For the 103rd Congress, it is part of a numeric series where consistency with the parent article name (United States Congress) and ambiguity with other numbered congresses reasonably justifies the longer name in that example. Without specific conventions telling us to use a longer name, WP:TITLEDAB and WP:OVERPRECISION both tell us to use the shorter name. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us to use the shorter name for the primary topic. These Frederick Williams are the primary topics, therefore we use the shorter name. In other words, all those other examples are apples and the Frederick Williams are oranges. Consequently the argument and conclusion, I contend we likewise have such reasons here is fallacious.
The argument made appears to confuse the matters of recognisability and precision. The section linked by WP:COMMONNAME deals with recognisability and what those familiar but not necessarily experts in the area will recognise as the name of the subject. This is the distinction between using Frederick William IV v Friedrich Wilhelm IV, Peter the Great v Peter I or William the Conqueror v William I. Adding of Prussia is a matter of precision. It distinguishes (disambiguates) these Frederick Williams from other Frederick Williams - if necessary. However, if these Frederick Williams do not need disambiguation (mainly here because they are the primary target) then the extra precision is redundant. Furthermore, while of Prussia may be natural disambiguation, it is not necessarily the natural way to introduce them in prose in other articles. Removing unnecessary precision will tend to obviate the need to use piped links. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem stuck on the notion that there's only one correct weighting of criteria or interpretation of policy — your own. While I respect that you have your own weighting that you prefer and are free to advocate for it, policy simply does not support that there's only one right answer in this case, and nor do recent closures like this. However, since you seem intent on lengthy elaboration, I'll reciprocate with some final thoughts:
Those like me who oppose the change appeal to the policy directives at WP:AT that we prioritize reader interests over those of specialists or editors; that we make titles recognizable to someone familiar (not expert) with the general subject area; and that our titles fit what it calls an "encyclopedic register". On all of these grounds, retention seems preferable to removal. Readers are not served by the removal of the national clarifier, and no supporter has even attempted to show otherwise; recognizability can be insufficient without the country, even for individuals like me who are familiar with the general area of royalty; and sources like Britannica consistently include a clarifier with the title.
You feel differently, and that's fine. There are reasonable arguments both for dropping it and for retaining it. The only thing I see that clearly favors the shorter form is NCROY itself — or to be more specific, the recent change to NCROY that's prompted the current storm of contentious royalty RMs. The inconsistent results of that change (e.g., Edwards/Richards, Christians/Fredericks, etc.) suggest it may need to be revisited or the NCROY guideline refined... and that also is fine. Though we follow them whenever we reasonably can, guidelines are not sacrosanct and are meant to grow and improve based on community feedback.
Hanging this up for now and will await closure. Cheers, ╠╣uw [talk] 20:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Several similar recent RMs that appealed to NCROY have now opted to retain or add the country: Mary I of England, George X of Kartli, Maria I of Portugal, Charles X of France, an MR endorsement of Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain, etc. It seems increasingly clear that there simply isn't sufficient consensus for such removals in practice, and that we should reconsider the convention before going any further since continuing on this way will only make titles more jumbled and inconsistent. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I initially closed this as moved, based on an apparently clear policy and guideline-based rationale for this, but I had two complaints on my talk page saying I was WP:INVOLVED having supported other previous moves. So I'll reopen and recast this as a !vote instead. Rationale: The WP:NCROY guideline was updated recently to remove the need for "of X" appendages for unambiguous or clear primary topics, and there have been many recent precedents for doing exactly that. The supporters here simply argue that given that updated naming convention, and policy compliance with WP:AT, these monarchs can follow suit. There is nothing in the oppose !votes that would counter that general theme, the oppose !votes seem to be almost entirely countering the whole notion of having monarchs titled without countries, even though that's an issue that's already been settled in loftier venues than this. To be clear, arguments such as "showing the country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear" simply doesn't reflect the recent community-wide consensus. I would urge the closer of this discussion to consider these policy and guideline points in the usual fashion rather than counting votes.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that the first Frederick William of Brandenburg-Prussia was not Frederick William I is a good reason to leave them as is. "Frederick William [I/II/III/IV] of Prussia" is much more clearly a numbering of Prussian kings (as it is) than the bare names and numbers. Srnec (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think WP:SOVEREIGN contradicts itself. The second point says "Use the most common, unambiguous name...This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." Keep in mind that COMMONNAME specifies English-language sources. As has been shown here, English-language sources are always going to introduce these using the country. When SOVEREIGN then says in its third point that "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed," that contradicts point 2 and COMMONNAME, because sometimes the territorial designation is necessary under COMMONNAME with no consideration of disambiguation, (also, COMMONNAME is policy while SOVEREIGN is a guideline). --
JFHutson (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_William_IV_of_Prussia&oldid=1217411696"