Talk:Lotharingia

Nomenclature

Are the references to Lothringia correct - or should they have that extra a ?

-- Beardo 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Should be "Lotharingia". There is a problem with Wikipedia's nomenclature on Lotharingia. While in English the kingdom up to Zwentibold is usually called Lotharingia, the duchies are usually referred to as Lower and Upper Lorraine, not Lower and Upper Lotharingia, as one user seems intent on keeping it. Upper Lorraine is usually just called "Lorraine", at least after the marginalisation of Lower Lorraine. "Duke of Lothier" is a later term for the title "Duke of Lower Lorraine" after the dukeship lost all territorial and political significance. Many of the instances of these terms should be changed throughout Wikipedia so as to better conform to the most common English usage. But is it more common to call the early dukes of a united province dukes of Lorraine or Lotharingia? That I do not know. Srnec 15:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Lothringen (German), or Lorriane (France and common name in English) are also correct for the area, but historians use Lotharingia until the split from most sources I have read.Spshu (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Text doesn't match the map

The map shows Northern Italy, much of the Alpine region and part of Southern France as part of the kingdom but the text ignores this. Please provide clarification. Brammen 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it is from the post-Louis split in 870 Treaty of Verdun, which split the Frankish Empire into thirds. Lotharingia was created from a split of one of those thirds into thirds (Lotharingia, Burgundy/Provence, Italy/Lombards). It was probably inserted until a better map could be found.Spshu (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom Infobox

The Former Country Infobox should stay. The objection of "disinfobox: Lotharingia≠"Lorraine"; a "monarchy" has a king; Capital "not specified", Government "not specified" etc etc: this temnplate is inappropriate" is easily false from the article and sources. Lorraine is a common name for Lotharingia. There is a list of kings so it is a monarchy and monarchy specified by monarchy. Capital was just not known intially. Many Frankish rulers had a moving court (capital). According to the Metz article, it was the Lotharingia capital. This template is very appropriate. Spshu (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it obfuscates rather than informs. And we can't very well have obfuboxes at Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fix the infobox then. It is clear that it is about (regarding your revert note) the Kingdom in that it is under the Kingdom section of the article. Second, the King did appoint a duke to represent him in the Kingdom thus the title "Duke of the Kingdom of Lotharingia" (latin: "dux regni quod a multis Hlotharii dicitur") for his representative.Spshu (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The text explains all this. Wikipedia is to be read. What is the infobox adding? Srnec (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

An infobox can be read too. Seems more like you have a problem with the concept of infoboxes then anything else. Printed encyclopedia's like World Book have standard tables like infoboxes. The text does not have all the information that is in the infobox, for example it lacks the capital, key kings particularily the last one. In fact, the article is tagged with a request for a infobox under the WikiProject Former Countries' "Assessment". Wikipedia's Manual of Styles states "They are a broad class of templates commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject." Spshu (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Disinfoboxes
A box aggressively attracts the marginally  literate eye with apparent promises to contain a  reductive summary of information that can't be  neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-  line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers  a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.  As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box  trumps all discourse.                —Wetman

There is also a request for a coat-of-arms and a flag! The text mentions all the kings and I don't know why we have to describe Metz as the capital. Was it the favoured residence of Lothair II? If that would be more accurate, the text could say so and the reader would end up more informed.

I do have a problem with infoboxes of this sort in principle. They are added without reason or justification just because they exist by editors with no content to add. Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not necessarily represent consensus, and when it doesn't, I ignore it. Srnec (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore what you will, but the default position is to have an infobox. For readers like you and Wetman, ignoring the infobox should work just fine. In any event, this article needs enough help on referencing that its lack of an infobox is the least of its problems. -Rrius (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article needs alot of work as we do not need any "obfu-articles" here at the Wikipedia. The infobox add info and gives some structure in the article. If I was assign to find out the ending year of the Kingdom of Lotharingia by an instructor and read the Kingdom subsection, I would assume that 900 is the right year with the infobox it would indicate otherwise as we known it ends almost 25 years later but would show that King's representatives', duke of the kingdom that many call Lothair's, covered under the Duchy section instead of the Kingdom section. Further scans of the article still don't nail it down the year. Additional, infoboxes also serve as navigational aides between articles eg. send them to successor states. Spshu (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the default position is to not have an infobox, whether or not Rrius is aware. I have just had a post at User talk:Wetman from Spshu: "Either take part in the discussion or stop reverting the infoboxes." Spshu opens the discussion with the self-confident announcement "Lotharingia is the same as Lorraine".

"Lotharingia is the same as Lorraine" expresses the heart of the problem. Belgium and Belgii can't be forced to fit a single infobox either. And, notoriously, a disinfobox designed for the George Washington Bridge doesn't fit Ponte Vecchio. Perhaps this article could be left to those with some competence in the subject.--Wetman (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Spshu, the reason you can't find the date at which the kingdom ended is because there isn't one. In the period under discussion East Francia/Germany was composed of several regna (kingdoms), which were in fact ruled by dukes. Which brings me to my next point...

Lotharingia is obviously Lorraine, etymologically. In the same way, as Wetman pointed out already, Belgium is the Belgii. History is continuous (hence no date for the end of the kingdom of Lotharingia). Rather than force it into a box, which demands precise dates for "events" that were actually processes, why not explain it to the reader? Srnec (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm likely to be misunderstood. My point is that Lotharingia and Lorraine are related terms (and sometimes usage does overlap), but they are distinct in the same way Belgium and Belgii are related but distinct terms, the relation between them not fitting well in any infobox. I would remind the readers that the George Washington Bridge/Ponte Vecchio distinction raised by Wetman is representative of the problem we have here: ninth- and tenth-century entities do not always correspond exactly to their twenty-first-century counterparts. Canada is a kingdom, but its structure is far more different from Lotharingia's than from that of its republican neighbour to the south. Srnec (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the request for a coat-of-arms and a flag. Pre-heraldry coat-of-arms show up as banner of arms, see the Bayeux_Tapestry which shows the banner of arms of William I of England and the existance of Charlemagne's Oriflamme. Infact, while not authenticated completely, there is a flag of Lotharingia as reported in the book Deux mille ans d'histoire belge (Two thousand years of Belgian history). Léon van der Essen, Professor of History at the University of Leuven, Éditions Universitaires, 1946.

Canada is a Federal Dominion whose Dominus is a King (or Queen), thus it has an equal Feudal Rank to a Kingdom. Similiarly, the United States of America is a Federal Republic (and thus no Feudal Rank) whose "First-Citizen" is the President.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because it isn't consensus isn't reason to ignore it. A better reason than that should be given as infoboxes are some what standard in Encyclopedias and most like the infobox in the printed Encyclopedias are dropped in lesser/smaller article for space considerations. The Wikipedia by definition is an encyclopedia and has no space consideration. Nor are all fields in an infobox are expected to be used to address "disinfobox designed for the George Washington Bridge doesn't fit Ponte Vecchio." issue.

I am confident about my statement "Lorraine is a common name for Lotharingia" as it is linked to a source. And I will add to it: Hartig, Otto. "Lorraine." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 5 Nov. 2009. friesian.com page about Lotharingia/Lorraine. Kelley L. Ross, B.A. Magnâ cum Laude in an Individual Field (Classical and Middle Eastern History, Languages, and Philosophy), Ph.D. It is not self-confident if you mean I assume it on my own authority, as you seem to pass by my source.

I do have some competence in the subject, so I glad that you think I should take charge of the article, Wetman. More, later... Spshu (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliability counts. —Srnec (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the iboxes stay. You have no consenus for them to go. Spshu (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Last attempt at discussion. With no consensus, there are 3 editors for the infobox and 2 against. All your arguments are your person option or have been refuted. So stop removing the infobox. Spshu (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As you admit, there is no consensus for the infobox. I believe the "onus of proof" for adding to an article is on the one wishing to add, so the default position of the article, barring consensus, should be without an infobox. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

With no consensus do to you sticking to your personal opinion, a vote is the next best decider. Plus, we had a newer user‎, Xuxalliope, add the infobox, so that makes 4 editors for an infobox. Given your stance is opinion, you lost the debate. A person a talk to in the information field, a librarian, finds your stance to be incorrect. It is standard for encyclopedia article (on large subject categories like former countries) to have what we call an infobox. As I discussed with a librarian and he agreed with is that you are not thinking of the reader. If they don't have a lot of time and are just looking for a single fact that might be found in the infobox and they don't find it, they might just go to another site (and possibly not come back) thus defeating the purpose of WP. If they find the information they need in the infobox, they might be interested enough to come back later to read the whole article, which is what you want. If there is no point in having an infobox then what is the point in lead summary paragraphs? Don't be self defeating, Srnec. I have thus address all your legitimate concerns. Spshu (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We're not creating a database, we're building an encyclopedia. The infobox is what defeats the purpose of WP! The subject of this article is not so easily condensed into the standardised box. Srnec (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki is a database. It is what is running this site. So if you don't want to build a database then leave. Spshu (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

the map of 900 AD Europe is a total nonsense

"Europe in 900, showing the Lotharingia and its neighbours" Firstly even in 1009 AD in the place of so called Cassubia lived not slavic, but Lithuanian people who were Pagans (i.e. spoke Lithuanian language and had Lithuanian gods and even could not speak polish) and were called Pamarenai (thus Pomerania or the land at the sea in Lithuanian language) and moreover they lived till Rugen island which is till today is full of Lithuanian names like Arkona (the place of the worship of Lithuanian god Perkunas), Rugys (the rye), Raigardas (the place where the rye is stored), Tilze (Tilzit, Lithuanian city Telsiai or Tilze), Rambynas (Rambyn, Lithuanian name for the "whip, lash" of the god Perkunas) and with Lithuanian family endings -vichiai (-vitz) and so on...also Kievan Rus in 1009 AD was called simply Rus and had the northern border with Lithuania at the whole length of the river Pripet (in Lithuanian language it means the river at the south). 86.38.75.182 (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)