Talk:Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse)/Archive 1

message: I made a mistake (see below) in renaming this page. Per Wiki convention, this should be the article's title but I am loathe to redirect again. Can someone help? Mowens35 19:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had read the top of the page, you would see how this page got here. It was a mistake on my part but I cannot correct it without multiple redirects. I think the consort issue per Wiki works fine. We have disambiguation pages to help as well as links within articles that would reach Alix of Hesse and by Rhine without difficulty. Mowens35 10:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: misc

message: It seems like no one ever came to agreement on what this article should be called, yet everyone agreed it was at the wrong title.  So I've moved it, pending agreement on a new title, to a title that at least observes wikipedia standards. Deb 09:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When the renamer knew that there existed no consensus for the new name, what justified to move in that situation???~~
* I think Alexandra of Hesse is the best name. I don't think the "and by Rhine" is universaly used. Astrotrain 20:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I regard the move by Deb as high-handed action, clearly without consensus, and sadly against any reasonable usage of the names of the subject. For those who are able and willing to read the talk page before any moves, there has long been a warning against the unpractical "of Hesse and by Rhine", which "definitely should not be used in title of the article". IMO to put "and by Rhine" is so useless and so burdening, approximately the same as adding everywhere "and Northern Ireland" when speaking about Elizabeth II. In an encyclopedia, headings are expected to be concise, and not dumping places where to put all the life story of the subject (all such can better be explained in the article itself). My opinion for the heading is Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse. 217.140.193.123 01:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you not see that this is an impossible title for the article, consisting as it does of two completely disparate epithets that you have cobbled together? Deb 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-naming article

message: Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse back to Alix of Hesse.  The present article title is untenable, and consensus has not been reached on anything better than this previous title. Deb 22:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never called "Alix of Hesse"! The vote is misleading and manipulated despite my objections (unlawfully deleted from this talk page) mikka (t) 15:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it was a misrepresentation. Such manipulation and habit seems to be the trademark. However, I hope the misrepresentation has now been corrected and pointed out to readers so clearly that it hopefuly does not affect the voting. Arrigo 07:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Any one who wants to add another move proposal is encouraged to do so. Philip Baird Shearer 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think it might be best to hold the various move proposals indefinitely. Some of the opinions expressed are relevant to Russian consorts in general, and not to this specific example. There was some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) about exceptions for Russian consorts, but it never reached fruition. I have summarized that discussion in a subsection of that page here, and I think it would be better to settle the issue there, rather than go through a flurry of move proposals for each individual consort. (I should note that one of the possibilities would be to use "Empress X Y of Russia," and any necessary disambiguation, for the names of Russian consorts, which people have expressed a preference for here.) Choess 22:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I find it a very bad practice to start a vote immediately after the first proposal. Normally polls should have a lag for a discusion, so that a reasonable opinion could be formed after all possibilities have been considered. Otherwise it looks like POV pushing rat race: the first is the best. I suggest a lag time of 2 days. Also, the vole deadline is not set. Shall the poll sit here infinitely and the page moved with each sway in the score? mikka (t) 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That is not how an attempt to reach a consensus via WP:RM is done. It often turns out that one name is proposed and as the discussion develops another name which was not suggested at first becomes more popular. After all one is free to change one's vote at any time if a better name is proposed. with An example of where this is happening at the moment is Talk:First Nations of Canada. With Approval voting one is free to vote for a many or as few proposals as one likes and to vote tactically, all of which helps to build a consensus. Philip Baird Shearer 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be actioned if there is a rough consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.  The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged.
--Philip Baird Shearer 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Charlotte of Prussia follows standard consort namings internationally (eg, Blanche of Castile, Catherine of Aragon, Ingrid of Sweden etc). The name here is a bastardised hybrid that is out of step with historical naming and indeed elementary royal practice for consorts. It is so ridiculous it is mindboggling. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But,f.Eire, Catherine of Aragon was originally Catalina of Aragon, and Blanche of Castile was originally Blanca of Castile. Why do you allow these a frenchification of the first name, but not to poor Charlotte her self-chosen russian version Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia??Arrigo 07:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the decision-making with this present article has gone so far that the matter will be decided here. Most of Deb's allies (those who want Alix "back") have not contributed anything to the decision-making in the new discussion of general standard. It is always easier for less-knowledgeable to simply vote at one case, rather than give reasons. Arrigo 07:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: ::Add any additional comments
Any one who wants to add another move proposal is encouraged to do so. Philip Baird Shearer 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it might be best to hold the various move proposals indefinitely. Some of the opinions expressed are relevant to Russian consorts in general, and not to this specific example. There was some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) about exceptions for Russian consorts, but it never reached fruition. I have summarized that discussion in a subsection of that page here, and I think it would be better to settle the issue there, rather than go through a flurry of move proposals for each individual consort. (I should note that one of the possibilities would be to use "Empress X Y of Russia," and any necessary disambiguation, for the names of Russian consorts, which people have expressed a preference for here.) Choess 22:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I find it a very bad practice to start a vote immediately after the first proposal. Normally polls should have a lag for a discusion, so that a reasonable opinion could be formed after all possibilities have been considered. Otherwise it looks like POV pushing rat race: the first is the best. I suggest a lag time of 2 days. Also, the vole deadline is not set. Shall the poll sit here infinitely and the page moved with each sway in the score? mikka (t) 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That is not how an attempt to reach a consensus via WP:RM is done. It often turns out that one name is proposed and as the discussion develops another name which was not suggested at first becomes more popular. After all one is free to change one's vote at any time if a better name is proposed. with An example of where this is happening at the moment is Talk:First Nations of Canada. With Approval voting one is free to vote for a many or as few proposals as one likes and to vote tactically, all of which helps to build a consensus. Philip Baird Shearer 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be actioned if there is a rough consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.  The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged.
--Philip Baird Shearer 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Charlotte of Prussia follows standard consort namings internationally (eg, Blanche of Castile, Catherine of Aragon, Ingrid of Sweden etc). The name here is a bastardised hybrid that is out of step with historical naming and indeed elementary royal practice for consorts. It is so ridiculous it is mindboggling. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But,f.Eire, Catherine of Aragon was originally Catalina of Aragon, and Blanche of Castile was originally Blanca of Castile. Why do you allow these a frenchification of the first name, but not to poor Charlotte her self-chosen russian version Alexandra Fedorovna of Prussia??Arrigo 07:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the decision-making with this present article has gone so far that the matter will be decided here. Most of Deb's allies (those who want Alix "back") have not contributed anything to the decision-making in the new discussion of general standard. It is always easier for less-knowledgeable to simply vote at one case, rather than give reasons. Arrigo 07:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: #The subject of this article was born "Princess Alix of Hesse" in 1872.
#She converted to Russian Orthodoxy in 1894 and was rechristened Alexandra Feodorovna (or Fyodorovna).
#Although Alix has been used as a diminutive for Alexandra by royals (it was for Queen Alexandra, for instance), this is not the case here - the two names are separate, one her full, non-diminutive German birth-name, the other her post-conversion Russian name.
#Alexandra Feodorovna married Emperor Nicholas II of Russia immediately after her conversion, and became Russian Empress.
#She is not the only Empress Alexandra Feodorovna/Fyodorovna of Russia.  She shares this name with her husband's great-grandmother, née Charlotte of Prussia.
#When not referring specifically to her early life, she is normally referred to as Alexandra, and not Alix.  Nicholas and Alexandra was a popular biography of she and her husband, which was made into a film, and most other works on her use the name Alexandra as her name.  As Irpen has demonstrated, this is also true of other encyclopedias.
#One of our naming policies says that we should use the most common name.  It seems clear to me that for her given name, Alexandra is most common.
#Another of our naming policies says that royal consorts ought to be identified by their pre-marriage territorial designation (for princesses), or their maiden name (for non-princesses). It seems clear to me that her pre-marriage territorial designation is "Hesse" or "Hesse and by Rhine."
#This would suggest that, under current naming policy, she ought to be at Alexandra of Hesse.
#This means that the other articles should be at Marie of Württemberg, Elisabeth of Baden, Alexandra of Prussia, Marie of Hesse, and Marie of Denmark.
#The fact that these names are not very commonly used is neither here nor there, so long as we have odd article locations like Elisabeth of Bavaria.  The very people arguing for the artficiality of this suggested solution are the ones who have been most strongly in favor of maintaining the "you have to use the maiden name" rule for all (other) articles on European royalty.
#This is not to say that current naming policy is necessarily appropriate for Russian consorts.  Most consorts, for instance Empress Marie, Nicholas II's mother, are best known by Given Name+Patronymic.  Marie Feodorovna, not Marie.  And so forth.
#If we wish to include patronymics, we have two options: either create a somewhat artificial "Given Name+Patronymic+Pre-Marriage Territorial Designation" (Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse), or just go full on for the post-marriage title, and figure out some way to disambiguate between the two Marie Feodorovnas and the two Alexandra Feodorovnas.
Based on this recital, I'd like to suggest that Alix vs. Alexandra is a discussion which can be had completely separately from the arguments over patronymic and territorial designation.  There is absolutely no reason to use Sophia Dorothea, Louise, Charlotte, Dagmar, and Alix as our article titles for women generally known as Marie, Elisabeth, Alexandra, Marie, and Alexandra, respectively.  (I do not include Empress Marie Alexandrovna, who was Marie before her conversion).  This issue ought to be settled once and for all. john k 08:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few facts to recall (with my comments italicized) 

message: Contrary to the suggestions made above by User:Arrigo (or 217.140.193.123 or   User:69.10.141.71 or whatever he is calling himself today), my sole interest in moving this article is to ensure that the standards of the English wikipedia are maintained.  Over the past few years, many of us have laboured long and hard to establish helpful naming conventions and guidelines.  This is not for our own benefit; it is intended to make wikipedia easier to use for the person who seeks to retrieve information from it.  I have never said, or implied, that I would prefer not to use "Alexandra" as part of the title of this article.  "Alexandra" is the English translation of "Alix", and in my opinion, either of these versions of the forename is acceptable, provided that it is used as part of a recognisable name. (In this I am of course completely in agreement with John Kenney.)  This is the English wikipedia, and the standards adopted by the wikipedias of other languages are of necessity different in many respects.  Simply because an article title is acceptable or preferable in another language does not make it the best choice for a title in the English wikipedia, and there are huge numbers of examples to illustrate this.  I myself work regularly in the Welsh and French language wikipedias, both of which have different naming conventions.  Sometimes I participate in debate on these conventions, but once they have been decided (usually by a combination of consensus and the expert knowledge of native speakers), I always abide by them.  The reason I reject the present title and Arrigo’s alternative is because they are made-up names, meaningless in the outside world and worthless for information retrieval purposes.  As Irpen’s research illustrates, they are never used in any other context.  They therefore break the cardinal rule of wikipedia article naming: "Use the most common form of the name used in English", and this is why they should not be chosen.  It may not always be clear what is the "most common form", but in this case it is very clear what it is not.  Arrigo’s devotion to these alternatives appears to be based entirely on the fact that he made them up himself.  This explains why he is so fixated with the matter that he has to waste his time formulating tirades against me and anyone else who thwarts him, when he could be spending his time more profitably in making useful contributions to this and other articles. Deb 17:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are sadly mistaken when imagining that "Alexandra" is the English translation of "Alix". Most of us of course jknow that the English translation of German Alix is Alice - as it actually was as namesake of Alice A.F. received that name. I will not use time to point out other mistakes and misrepresentations in the above tirade. 217.140.193.123 18:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean "Alexandra of Hesse", John, I've already voted for it above! Deb 21:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, if we try to find translations (which however is in vain, IMO, as such cannot realistically be used), the closest translation of Dagmar would be Margaret. The name Dagmar was invented or became to use for Margaret of Bohemia who married Valdemar II of Denmark and was not earlier in known use anywhere. In Scandinavian proto-language, it meant either shine of dawn or daughter of dawn ("mar" is really old and obsolete word and people are not very sure of its precise meaning). However, there is no need to translate all sorts of Danish Dagmars to Margarets in english. And yet more distant would be to use "Margarita Kristianovna" in Russian.This brings me to mention one of the reasons why brides, starting from the future Catherine the Great, were induced to adopt a new name and patronymic: The German influence culminating to the time of regent Anna Leopoldovna was felt too damaging, and starting from Empress Elisabeth, russification was the norm. "Leopoldovna"-style half-German versions were not allowed any longer in imperial house. Elisabeth's chosen heir was not allowed to be "Peter Karlovich", or even more German (Karl Peter Ulrich), he took Peter Fedorovich as his romanov name. Catherine was not even allowed to keep her original "Sophia" as Peter the Great's big sister was in ban - otherwise we could have Empress Sophia the Great. 217.140.193.123 19:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FOR THE RECORD

message: It seems to me that while people disagree on many things here, the consensus is being formed that "Alix" in the title is a dead idea. If so, we can consentrate of discussion of choosing between different article titles that include Alexandra as a first word in the title, which leaves us with "A OR A. F. (possibly but not necessarily) of something". If we all agree on discarding "Alix", let's move to this discussion on which I have an opinion too, but I would not like to waste time arguing about this until we made this first small step. --Irpen 19:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, I agree that "Alexandra" was the name by which she was most commonly known and we should put that in the title. I prefer disambiguation, but "Alexandra of Hesse" would be acceptable if that's what it takes for a consensus. Choess 03:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I wait, but not holding my breath, that all those partisans of Alix would accept. Of course it would be nice to have Alix recognized as dead idea, and I support. Arrigo 09:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The forename has never been an issue for me.  Since both "Alix" and "Alexandra" are used frequently to refer to her in English, either is acceptable.  This was a red herring drawn across the path to distract us from the real issue of the naming of the article. Deb 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we take that as a confession: "This (apparently 'Alix of Hesse and by Rhine') was a red herring drawn across the path to distract us from the real issue of the naming of the article." 217.140.193.123 03:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you said "heck, anything is better than the current", would you consent to putting her under Alexandra, Tsarina of Russia ?? (if not, why?) Arrigo 08:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can the "Alix" in the title be put to rest now?

message: Jtdirl - quit pretending that there's some sort of convention that supports your preferred opening when there isn't.  There has never been a settled convention as to how to deal with this issue, and your continuous certainty and self-righteousness about this is becoming rather grating.  john k 02:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, lets also conduct the discussion at talk in a better style. Secondly, lets resolve the issue with an article name first and then deal with the text. Not that I would advocate protecting the article, but I would be willing to overlook for now the edits that I find disagreeable to reach a consensus on the name. We will never solve any argument unless we deal with one issue at a time, or even smaller steps (like agreeing not to use Alix first and then proceeding based on that). --Irpen 04:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Besides, the resolution of the naming question will have some bearing to the first line, as it is somewhat agreed that the article should begin with name, presumably the same name as the heading is. (and sometimes ignorant editors change headings on basis of what happens to be written in the first line...) 217.140.193.123 04:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, then I had received slightly erroneous information... (I have seen headings changed due to first line, anyway). When you say "the full name", is there any convention about at which stage of life? highest? latest? or, if someone has two different full names, are both reported there? and in what order? what is enforceable policy there, and what is left to writer's taste? 217.140.193.123 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, highest, except for living people, where it's current.  For two full names, it becomes complicated, which is the issue here.  The better known one is supposed to go first. john k 14:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: As to styles - well, I'm getting to the point of saying to hell with it and moving over to opposing it.  Cases like this are just annoying - Alexandra was an Imperial Majesty through marriage, so it makes absolutely no sense to begin the article by calling her a Grand Ducal Highness.  At any rate, as to the difference, I'm not sure what you mean.  Obviously, for article titles, we need to have a unique title, so a certain amount of fudging is necessary.  But I don't see why the first line (which doesn't have to be unique) shouldn't follow the "highest title" rule.  Peeresses are generally located under their married name.  So are, well, most other women.  People in general who've changed their names are generally referred to in the first reference by the name that they had for most of their adult life.  What you are advocating is that monarchical consorts be the only exception to this.  And I am completely unclear as to what the justification of this is.  Now, in instances where as queen-consort, a lady was known by her premarriage name - Anne of Austria or Catherine of Aragon or Mary of Modena, or whoever, I have no problem with putting that name first (but note the anglicized/francized versions - their birth names were "Doña Ana de Austria, Infanta of Spain," "Infanta Doña Catalina d'Aragon," "Maria Beatrice d'Este, Princess of Modena," or whatever.  We very distinctly do not put these titles first in articles, and there's absolutely no reason that we should.  For cases of queen-consorts who are not normally referred to, while queen-consort, by a version of their premarriage name - Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for instance, or Elisabeth of Bavaria - there is absolutely no reason that their birth name has to go first.  Elizabeth (1900-2002), was Queen-Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom.  She was born Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon  Elisabeth (1837-1898) was Empress to Franz Joseph I of Austria.  She was born Elizabeth Amalie Eugenie, Duchess in Bavaria..."  This is all the more true for women who actually changed their name before becoming consort.  The other way of doing it is incredibly awkward - why are we referring to an Empress as a duchess?  Why are we referring to a queen as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon?  No other encyclopedia does this, and I can see no compelling reason for doing so.  john k 07:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First Line

message: :I have reverted the page move as the vote is still on-going. The destination you moved it to has 0 support votes and 1 oppose votes. Consensus must be gained before a page move, not after it. Thryduulf 10:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse)]]

message: I recalled that in 19th century, there lived certain "semi-imperial" families in Russia, such that were according to Pauline Law entitled to succeed to the imperial throne in case of male dynasts going extinct, and which had chosen to reside in Russia, being orthodox and enjoy property in Russia. First time I came across mentions of those families was years ago in memoirs of grand duke Alexander Mikhailovich. Now I checked in our university library some old Almanach de Gothas and some extant lists in Russian court/ bureaucracy calendars. And, surprise, such families were sometimes there. Those families were: Oldenburg, who were descended from grand duchess Catherine Pavlovna, sister of Alexander I; Mecklenburg-Strelitz who were descended from a daughter of sonless grand duke Michael Pavlovich of Russia; and Leuchtenberg who were descended from eldest daughter of Nicholas I.
According to those works of reference, there existed gentlemen such as "Alexander Yurievich, Duke of Leuchtenberg, Prince Romanovsky" (1881-1942) and "Sergei Yurievich of Leuchtenberg, Prince Romanovsky" (1890-1974); Prince Peter Yurievich of Oldenburg (1812-81), HIH Prince Alexander Petrovich of Oldenburg (father-in-law of Nicholas II's youngest sister), and Prince Mihail Yurievich of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1863-1934). The most relevant finding however is the existence of Princess Alexandra Petrovna of Oldenburg (b 1838 in St.Petersburg, d 1900 in Kiev), born and lived apparently as orthodox and was known as Alexandra Petrovna, was granddaughter of that grand duchess Catherine Pavlovna, and when married, in 1856, to Grand duke Nicholas Nicolaievich, third son of Nicholas I, was well known as "Princess Alexandra Petrovna of Oldenburg" - and in later genealogical representations was presented as "Alexandra Petrovna of Oldenburg". 217.140.193.123 00:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known use of Russian firstname+patronymic + Western territorial designation 

message: It seems like  Alexandra of Hesse has the most weight behind it with no opposition. However, if this is not the case I'll probably sticker this one with a "no consensus" template for now.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There clearly was no consensus yet. --Irpen 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: I happened to come across this article by way of :Category:Requested moves.  Would anyone object to portions of this discussion being archived?  Also, what is the status regarding the renaming of this article?  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive?

message: What about a generic Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia or Alexandra Fyodorovna Romanova? Maybe it's the most technically incorrect and artifical of them all, but the least confusing (at least to a Russian ear).
:(sarcasm mode on) I guess didn't have a SSN, right? Would make an ideal non-ambiguous name... (sarcasm mode off). --DmitryKo 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Empress Alexandra of Russia (1872-1918), or Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia (1872-1918), that would solve the conflict with the other Empress Alexandra of Russia (1798-1860)? "Alexandra of Russia" would imply she was ruler, like "Catherine of Russia". Also a combination of her russian name + Hesse would be historically simply incorrect. She is either "Princess Alix of Hesse and Rhine" or "Empress Alexandra of Russia", but noth both... Gryffindor 13:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More alternatives