Talk:Prince William of Hesse-Kassel

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall think people who revert the edits are interested in Wikialty then the actual content of the articles relating the Kassel branch of the former ruling house of Hesse, but if all interested, overall issue under way at

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move as before. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cladeal832. JPG-GR (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If interested why this move is happening, refer to this Discussion Cladeal832 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Agree Agree with the above mentioned points. Please try not to make this personal. MeanLevels (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree the vast majority of other related articles use Hesse-Kassel JLIBPB (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Kassel is the name use in English for the city. Disagree with silly prejudice against non-Anglophones. Think there have been many more good reasons for Kassel compared with CasselTodkvi5832 (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that, in the Google Scholar search, the Journal of Modern History, the leading journal of European history, uses "Hesse-Kassel". So, among my books, do John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, a standard textbook; James Sheehan's German History 1770-1866, the standard English-language work on that period of German history; McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, a standard work on early modern diplomatic history; and various others. That is also the name used by Encyclopedia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia. It is also essentially true that while the translated name "Hesse" remains in general use in English for the region, the anglicized "Cassel" is very rarely used, and the city is normally called "Kassel." It is not wikipedia's job to create uniformity when the usage itself is not uniform. And the standard usage at the beginning of the 21st century is, indeed, "Hesse-Kassel," and not either "Hesse-Cassel" or "Hessen-Kassel." john k 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: looking at JSTOR searches, the American Historical Review (the main American historical journal), as well as the Sixteenth Century Journal and the German Studies Review use "Hesse-Kassel", all in recent articles. The only title match for "Hesse-Cassel" is from the Journal of Economic History. Also note that many of the results for "Hesse-Cassel" in the Google Scholar search come from older sources - one is from 1912. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For the same reasons as before, but this time with the additional reason that the proposer of the move is a vote canvasser, who may be employing either sockpuppets or meatpuppets in an attempt to vote-stack. The subject of this article was never known as "Hesse-Kassel" and was always known as "Hesse-Cassel". I see no reason to alter their surname to a modern neologism, when the spelling that they used themselves is perfectly consistent with an accepted norm.

Thanks for another personal attack. I don't use sock-puppets, and no I don't canvass for votes. Just that you stated you were a librarian and use that creditial to state that Hesse-Cassel is used more often, but solely for an FYI thing, just wanted to let you know about this other information that know realize you must have already ready and ignored from the

Talk:Hesse-Kassel. I didn't even ask for you to vote, let alone which way to vote, which is requirement of canvassing. Show that other editors make actual notice that one the "more coherant" arguement requirement for a move, the points I have brought up are actual better. This exactly why Britannica is not affair of Wikipedia. They would never spelt Cassel for one article and use Kassel for the same person's sibling. Of the nearly 50 article titles and over one thousand articles that use it, only 7 use Hesse-Cassel in just the title so pretty sign of wider consensus including Category:House of Hesse-Kassel. Also note that 1911 edition Britannica gives "Hesse-Cassel" while the current one uses "Hesse-Kassel". If Britannica is able to update, surely Wikipedia will too. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Still Agree think new admins ought to be used to objectively look over this. Fear that opinions not made admins will not be counted nor are admin willing to be objective. Hesse-Kassel ought to link up with
  Hesse-Kassel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:JLIBPB (talk • contribs
  )

66.185.217.73 (talk): This anonymous user is an IP in Ontario, Canada and shows a distinctive editing pattern of no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel.

User:Cladeal832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They also edit from Ontario IP addresses[1].

User:MeanLevels shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario related subject matter[2].

User:JLIBPB shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario-related subject matter[3].

User:Todkvi5832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. The username ends in the same three letter abbreviation as Cladeal832.

All five have "!voted" at least once in related move debates and occasionally edit each others' comments:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

requested move

. 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 move request was: pages moved. harej 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Landgrave George William of Hesse-Darmstadt → Prince George William of Hesse-Darmstadt
• Landgrave Frederick of Hesse-Kassel → Prince Frederick of Hesse-Kassel
• Landgrave Charles of Hesse-Kassel → Prince Charles of Hesse-Kassel
• Landgrave Christian of Hesse-Darmstadt → Prince Christian of Hesse-Darmstadt

• Comment: Wouldn't it be anachronistic to called them this? It's like calling Duchesses X in Bavaria, Princess X of Bavaria just because some might not get the in part and why some were Princess and others Duchess. And I really don't get how you can get confused, if you are not confused by William I, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont and Prince William of Waldeck and Pyrmont or William, Archduke of Austria and Archduke William of Austria (not of these names are real). Did the elevation from Landgrave to Prince in 1803 actually involved Landgrave William of Hesse-Kassel and his family?--
  talk) 04:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The current scheme expects us to differentiate between "Landgrave X of Hesse" and "X, Landgrave of Hesse". If you have a better scheme, please propose it, but the current scheme does not distinguish those who ruled from those who just held a title. That seems to me a big difference. Srnec (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "X, Landgrave of Hesse" ruled "Landgrave X of Hesse" only held the title. Exactly the same scheme followed by rulers of Principalities.--
      talk) 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Did you even read the rationale: "This is not a very useful way to go about it, as it doesn't make sense unless you already know the convention"? Srnec (talk)
      • Did you read my explanations and examples? If peolple can differinitate between X, Prince of Place and Prince X of Place then why should we change the situation for Landrgaves. There are many thing you need to understand before you can get why something is called something. Why are the children of Grand Dukes of Oldenburg titled Duke and Duchess instead of Prince and Princess? You need to understand that just how the convention is. If you just look at the article you can tell if they were rulers or not; just read.--
        talk) 23:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • No, this convention of naming is nowhere explained in the articles. I can't "just read" it. The point is that "X, Prince of Place" and "Prince X of Place" are identical in meaning. It's like "Louis IV, King of France" and "King Louis IV of France". They clearly identify the same person. There is nothing in the title of the one that is not equally applicable to the other. There is no reason that the non-ruling landgraves could not be styled "X, Landgrave of Hesse" and the ruling landgraves as "Landgrave X of Hesse". But John K already pointed out that the proposed destinations are in line with a contemporary naming convention. Our conventions cannot be arbitrary, but they must actually distinguish between otherwise ambiguous titles. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until somebody can show that these individuals are more commonly called "Prince" than "Landgrave". Article titles should reflect the reality of published scholarship - not a perfect world in which everything is immediately clear. We have Albert_II,_Prince_of_Monaco and Princess Stéphanie of Monaco. How is Landgrave different? Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point. I am not arguing that they should be moved either because (a) they are unclear, or (b) they are not correct. I am arguing that they should be moved because currently they follow a convention which is entirely arbitrary and local (to Wikipedia). As I already explained to Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy above, both the reigning landgraves and the non-reigning ones bore the title "Landgraf von Hessen-Kassel" (according to

Landgrave Charles of Hesse-Kassel" applies as much to Charles I, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel as to the one who currently has that article space. I trust John K's assertion that "this is what was generally used in English at the time". Even if they are more commonly called landgrave, we still have a naming problem for the same reason we can't move Henry the Young King to King Henry of England even though the latter is entirely correct and is in fact what he was called (and can still be called): ambiguity. Srnec (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support, certainly it seems that something needs to be done - we can't say that "Landgrave Charles" refers primarily to a non-reigning landgrave Charles merely because the Wikipedia convention for a reigning one would be different. The idea of using "Prince" for the non-reigning ones seems clear and natural, and no-one's suggested anything better, so I think we should go with that.--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not better, because it's making up a title for people. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not "making up", since we're told that the title is already used for these people in English. The alternative would be to add some kind of disambiguator to such titles as "

Landgrave Charles of Hesse-Kassel".--Kotniski (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. Seems to solve a problem without creating anything worse. The argument that the proposed names are "made up" appears to be refuted. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move

. 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.