Talk:Princess Louise Caroline of Hesse-Kassel

message: Overall think people who revert the edits are interested in Wikialty (something is true because I can get other Users to agree to it) then the actual informative content of the articles relating the Kassel branch of the former ruling house of Hesse, but if all interested, overall issue under way at Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel Cladeal832 (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Kassel is valid in English. Of course back to orignal point that nobody is will to actually make the required edits for the naming convention, but also why are none of the Users who are so adament about Hesse-Cassel requesting a move for all the royals using of Württemberg to of Wirtemberg? 66.185.217.73 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Württemberg is common in English, and is not an anachronism in German. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This anonymous address is an IP in Ontario, Canada. Cladeal832 also edits from Ontario IP addresses. I am aware that Ontario is a large place. DrKiernan (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree Well, the over 1,000 articles that Hesse-Kassel appears in Wikipedia would be a pretty good sign that it's also common in English? Plus since the main force of Usher:PMAnderson's reasoning is that Hesse-Kassel is German, Württemberg is obviously also a German word not just for the simple fact of that Ü. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This editor has "!voted" at least once more below this. DrKiernan (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it's evidence it's common in Wikipedia, which all too often speaks a jargon of its own. (Are you the anon in this thread, too?) Württemberg is common in German and  in current English; Hesse-Kassel is common in German, but not in English; Kassel is (probably) common in both.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, a change for the better; actual evidence. But I fear that the Britannica is, as often, exceptional. The Columbia Encyclopedia consistently uses Hesse-Cassel; Google Books uses Hesse-Cassel twice as often as Hesse-Kassel, and the New Cambridge Modern History is with the majority. (Vol IX, p. 16, et permulta  alia) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Google Books is like Wikipedia and although it's more, doesn't mean that in context (ie researcher's surname is Cassel or what-have-you). Also Columbia Encyclopedia uses Hesse-Kassel as well, so don't know where you're going with that. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *That's a cross-reference, like your counter-example for the Britannica; what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it's directly on point. It uses Hesse-Kassel in the exact context under discussion since it was the editors that wrote that as opposed to your example where it was copied from another 18th century source and reprinted. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Google Books treats "Hesse-Cassel" as a single word (I have added quotes to the search pages above, but the results don't change). No researchers named Cassel need apply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: **Make that Strongly oppose. Enough; a solitary user wants to impose a usage (is Kassel his hometown or what?) despite clear and traditional English usage; he displays the usual symptom of inability to write or understand English. I oppose all such forms of disruptive nationalism, and have spent too much time on them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Since User:PMAnderson not longer has any valid point and/or counter-points to make, will the title of Christian IX's mother article finally get moved? Cladeal832 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still oppose. Having stated my reasons in full, here and elsewhere, there is little more to say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But your reasons have all been dismissed one after the other? Cladeal832 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you haven't agreed with them. That's not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That tends to happen when a person is wrong. Even though you fear that Britannica is exception and ignore the Recent Articles of Google Scholar, I taken all your points and actually bother to give conter-points. I remember the stellar final arguement of Enough, but somehow it did not convince me. If the User is just going to be unreasonable and unwilling to make a consensus, then the guidelines states it is fine to go around them. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Why exactly is this move being held up? Granted universal consensus has not been reached, but that's not required? Cladeal832 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite simply because you appear to be the only one in favor of the move. Continuing to re-propose the moves over and over isn't gonna change the consensus, which is against the move. But, if you want to go through another five days... JPG-GR (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Because it was era without standardize spelling. Kassel vs. Cassel is like Frederick vs. Friedrich. If I was named Friedrich today, it's my name is English and German. Back then, especially royalty which all the people in question are, it would be Frederick in English which previous Wikipedia discussion have consented too. Are the other User willing to make a consensus or not. I am if I was convinced. By the 1926 example, Wirtemberg or Wuerttemberg ought be used which it isn't in Wikipedia even though documents from that era printed in Great Britain. Plus the Catherine of Aragon vs. Katherine of Aragon is directly on point since it's not about Anglicizing since this is referece to her time in England. During her lifetime (like the mother of Christian IX of Denmark and Cassel), she was called Katherine in English and today she is called Catherine in English by the most academics so that is the one Wikipedia uses. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are the people are so opposed willing to actually make a consensus or just use the "Because I say so" type mentality and not discuss. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c)We have discussed; see above. Despite your reasoning, no one who opposed is willing to change their decision. That's five to six people who have independently reviewed the situation. You are the only one preventing this discussion from closure. You say are we willing to make consensus: Yes, we have made it, but it is not to your liking. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *The proper phrasing is "are we willing to yield to Cladeal's unilateral and solitary demands?" No; I am less willing to do so than when this began. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See this is exactly what I don't get. It's actual of the main criticism of Wikipedia. Now I am the issue rather then the actual Hesse-Kassel stuff. Just above is crystal example. I make a valid point about Catherine of Aragon, and User:PeterSymonds dismiss it without addressing it. Catalina vs. Catherine would be Anglicisation issue, but Katherine vs. Catherine is anachronism issue, exactly like the one under issue here (ie that Catherine like Kassel may not have been used in that person's lifetime, but is today current scholars). And when I readdress that point, I just get a personal attack instead of discussion of the larger issue. It's pretty clear, although I hope it changes, that other Users, who although I appreciate they're involvement, are not being constructive and how come I kept readdressing this (which I take the bother to do since I understand and appreciate other's input (moreso when it's constructive) instead belly arching about it). Cladeal832 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Catherine/Katherine is precisely not an issue of anachronism; both names are in current use (Catherine R. Kinney/Katherine MacLean/Katharine Hepburn), and the only question is which is least astonishing in dealing with Henry's first Queen. Please stop trying to argue native speakers out of the usage of their own language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Astonshing? Lost me on that. If you're a native speaker of English then how come you don't know that Kassel is an English word. On any English map, Kassel is used today. Cassel is not in current use. One of the most current reference sources, Wikipedia, doesn't use it nor Britannica nor Columbia (expect in transcribing 18th century treaties) use it. Again, thanks for the personal attack on my ability to speak English (don't know what that has to do with Cassel or Kassel) Cladeal832 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Principle of Least Astonishment, which is (at least by analogy) the functional basis for our naming conventions. I don't know Kassel is an English word, because it isn't one: Cassel is. As for the last: one rarely seeks culinary advice from the tongueless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This talk page doesn't show any contributions from you in the last two years. JPG-GR (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: User:MeanLevels shows an identical editing pattern to Cladeal832 and is also interested in Ontario related subject matter. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Odd that your first contributions after a more than six month absence would be to weigh in on this proposal. JPG-GR (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: User:JLIBPB shows an identical editing pattern to User:Cladeal832 and is also interested in Ontario-related subject matter. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: And we have another editor whose first contributions after a six-plus month absence are to weigh in on this proposal. JPG-GR (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: User:Todkvi5832 ends in the same numerals as User:Cladeal832, ands shows the same editing pattern. DrKiernan (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also User:PeterSymons incorrectly implied that 3 Users check in on this, implying User:JPG-GR was one, which he or she was expressed being neutral on this and this page and other Talk Pages. Also PeterSymons never came into this discussion until early today and DrKiernan did not contribute on other articles, so really one User was opposed and no longer making valid arguements. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: Oh please, of course I have opposed. We all have except yourself. I have Augusta watchlisted, and yesterday I added this page following the dispute. I was going to remain neutral so I could move-protect if you continued reverting before the discussion was concluded, but I thought my involvement would be more constructive as an involved editor rather than an uninvolved admin. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No one suggests that Hesse-Kassel never occurs; similarly, I know of a prominent American historian (born in Breslau) who uses Nürnberg in English. But in both cases, we should prefer the choice of the New Cambridge Modern History to the unEnglish Teutonicism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:PeterSymons and whoever else, please read the first sentence of this edit. When a person stated from the get go that you are opposed to this move and won't let it happen while you're here, that sort of eliminated you as a neutral admin. So guess the Catherine of Aragon vs. Katherine of Aragon stuff didn't win you over (which still get how come since it seemed pretty on the mark?). What about Oslo (which was renamed from Kristiania in 1924) which is refer to as Oslo in Wikipedia long before it actually was called that or Beijing vs. Peking, which some (the same types that favor Cassel to Kassel I'd image) argue that Peking is still the more valid use in English. Now Beijing isn't a Chinese word (alphabet is a dead give away) so modern usage trumps it even in historical articles. Also same with Württemberg that used to be Wirtemberg? I've notice this isn't applying to Wikipedia guidelines or bureaucracy (notice that fairly or unfairly, you've gotten accusations of being a Wikicrat) but just using logic here. User:PMAnderson, so it does happen in English, but do you really believe the one "academic I know" trumps Journal of Modern History, American Historical Review, Sixteenth Century Journal, German Studies Review, John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, James Sheehan's German History 1770-1866, McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815 as well as Britannica Encyclopedia and Columbia Encyclopedia and plus Wikipedia itself (see Hesse-Kassel)? Address these Users in particular not to be mean and flippant, but to trying to build a sincere consensus (ie not just stating my own points without adjusting). The counter points act like this isn't an ambigious term. It is. There are source that use Hesse-Cassel and they aren't wrong, but neither are the ones that Hesse-Kassel (although to be fair, Hesse-Kassel got some modern heavyweights in its corner). Also that acknowledge the other side, the opposition will not put words in my mouth (Do not support 7 Hesse-Cassel articles on Wikipedia that ignore the nearly 50 other articles as well the over thousand that have Hesse-Kassel within the text) Cladeal832 (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my point. I decided to become involved at that edit. When pages are moved constantly, they are protected until the discussion is concluded. DrKiernan and myself are now two involved administrators, so such a move would be inappropriate. My point was, at the time, you were the only one to oppose. The discussion had been opened/closed/opened/closed, but despite overwhelming consensus to keep the articles at Hesse-Cassel, you did not accept it. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, as DrKiernan has said, uses Hesse-Cassel uniformly, and Google Scholar mostly uses "Cassel" as well. Two heavily authoritative sources. Your sources do not move me to change my decision, because "Hesse-Cassel" is clearly the most common usage here. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can admins just be against something because they "are not moved by it". Comes off as being a bit thick. Think these are a lot of sources here and how can someone just honestly be like "Nope, I'm an admin and it's no". Plus the overwhelming consensus is 3 people, and 3 editors are for the move 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you may like to notice the book (first published in 1884) which uses Hesse-Kassel in the text that is linked in the Duchess of Cambridge talk page. Also note these hits on Google Scholar from 1905, 1906, 1920, 1923 all are in English and all use Kassel. As well 711 hits on Google Book for pre-1926 publications including this one from 1818 so again, it was known as Hesse-Kassel prior to 1926. Also where is the reference stating it was officially Cassel pre-1926? So the point that Hesse-Kassel was a completely unknown term prior to 1926 and only used afterwards has been disproven. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request move

message: Everyone seems to be so concerned about her title's territorial designation that nobody pays attention to the actual title. As a daughter of a landgrave, wasn't she a Landgravine of Hesse-Cassel/Hesse-Kassel? Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess or Landgravine? 

message: possibly foolishly, I have re-opened the C-or-K naming dispute at Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel#Proposed move (3). If you have a strong opinion either way as to whether we should use the C form or the K form in the articles in question, please express it there. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RFC bot 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in process