Talk:Karl von Habsburg

message: As shown by the New York Times Style Manual and other sources, the proper spelling, in the English language, is Hapsburg.  In fact, when I try to spell it as Habsburg in this talk box, I get a red underline, indicating that it is misspelled.  How it is spelled in German has no bearing on how it should be rendered in English.  We refer to Wien as Vienna.  Also, we translate "Karl" into "Charles," so we should also adhere to standard English usage and spell "Hapsburg" correctly.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: John Paul Parks, I'm aware of the fact that in English the spelling with p instead of b sometimes occurred, but that is basically an anachronism nowadays. I've read many book in English about the subject of European dynasties and the spelling with b is prevalent in most if not all of them. I'm also not sure who made the NYT the god of the English language in matters like this. In this particular matter it's perfectly understandable why b became more prevalent in English than p. Every homologous word in English for the German word "burg" begins with the letter b. I agree with you about "Wien" being "Vienna" in English. About the names of these people.... Translating given names for monarchs has been prevalent in the past. On Wikipedia and in most other venues, translated names are still used for historical figures, but not for recent monarchs and indeed certainly not for other people originating in the 20th century or beyond. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply.  A modern example of translating names is the Pope.  On his website, he is Francis in English, Francesco in Italian, Francois in French, Francisco in Spanish and Portuguese, and Franziskus in German, and everyone seems to know who we are talking about!  I do not disagree with you about "burg."  That is spelled the same in English and German.  It is the first part of the word that is at issue.John Paul Parks (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will also find that the hesitancy to translate names is generally confined to English-speaking lands which, for some reason, have become infected with political correctness and apparently are embarrassed to use their own language or to admit that it has equal value to any other.  For example, in Spanish-speaking lands, you will find that a woman named "Isabel" is the Queen of a country called "Inglaterra," and that her capital is in a place called "Londres."  If you do not believe me, check out the article, "Inglaterra" on the Spanish version of Wikipedia.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever may be the origin of the custom (and I suspect that because English has become the world's lingua franca that its receptivity to foreignisms reflects an adaptability that keeps it thus), it is now generally the case that names of foreign royalty are no longer translated into their nearest English equivalent as was commonly done until World War I and, in some cases, subsequently. While I much prefer the majestic "King Baldwin" to "Baudouin", the traditional "King Charles XVI Gustavus" to "Carl XVI Gustaf" and "Louis Gaston d'Orléans, Prince of Braganza" to the tongue-twisting, "Luiz Gastão", gone, alas, are the days when Anglicization is seen as an appropriate appropriation in royal nomenclature. We may be wistful in the face of that turn of affairs, but resistance is likely to be perceived as petulant -- and to be responded to as if provocative. FactStraight (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about Spanish, but in Dutch and German it's much the same as in English. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of Hapsburg/Habsburg

message: Charles isn't reigning as Head of his House. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I removed a statement from this article owing to no support being given for it in the citation itself.74.131.99.14 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of unsupported statement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karl von Habsburg. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514105014/http://www.datum.at/1005/stories/1112924/ to http://www.datum.at/1005/stories/1112924
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recognize that the box includes titles in pretense (as opposed to recognized title) but I'm not sure it should call him "King of Hungary" since unlike other monarchies abolished by revolution (where supporters can claim the heir as the de jure king or emperor) Hungary pre-revolution required a coronation before assumption of royal authority thus even under the law saying he should become king he was never crowned.  He would still be de jure Emperor of Austria under the theory supporting his claim as that monarchy followed an automatic succession.  Emperor001 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though taking control of Hungary required the coronation process, he would still have a claim to the throne as the valid heir. However, the articles phrasing has changed to go around the problem itself.Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession Box

message: The article mentions that Karl von Habsburg is a Knight Grand Cross of Justice, by which I imagine it refers to the title of 'Knight Grand Cross of Justice Professed of Solemn Vows'. This intrigued me, as Knights of Justice have to take a vow of both chastity of poverty (While Karl von Habsburg is wealthy and has children). Their is no cite as source of this information, and Karl is not mentioned in the list of Knights of Justice. Doing personal research, I can find no mention of him holding any position within the order of Malta. Either there needs to be added a proper citation or this honour should be removed from the article. Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Maltese Order 

message: What is the relevance of this section in the article about this specific individual? Seems like all relevant info pertaining to Karl's life and the context he was born in is in the sections both above and below this section.
"As ordered personally by Adolf Hitler, Otto von Habsburg's personal property and that of the House of Habsburg were confiscated.[12] Otto von Habsburg, like later his son Karl, was a firm supporter of European integration and was a vehement opponent of National Socialism and Communism.[13][14] Hitler hated the Habsburgs, so much so that his invasion plan of Austria was called "Operation Otto". Hitler diametrically opposed the centuries-old Habsburg principles of "live and let live" with regard to ethnic groups, peoples, minorities, religions, cultures and languages.[15][16] Over 800 Habsburg resistance fighters were executed by the Nazis. Among them was Karl Burian, who was planning to blow up the Gestapo headquarters in Vienna, and Dr. Heinrich Maier, who very successfully sent the locations of Nazi armament factories for V-2 rockets, Tiger tanks or airplanes to the Allies and planned a monarchy for after the war in Central Europe.[17][18][19]"
I think this should be removed or drastically reduced. I could understand if the Karl the article is about was part of these resistance fighters or similar, but as it stands, it just reads like something written by some Habsburg PR person trying to paint the family in a good light at the wrong place. If anywhere, this section should be in an article about the House in general. 
What do you think? 
85.127.36.167 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant section 

message: To avoid an edit war, let's discuss here. Fundamentally, this is about WP:NPOV for me. Wikipedia must be neutral in the subjects it covers, and right now the article reads like it was written by someone promoting the image of Karl von Habsburg. The material I removed is not necessary to get an encyclopedic understanding of his life - after all, an encyclopedia is a summary, and not a resume or venue for a person's thoughts on themself. I'm happy to go point by point specifically on each chunk of material removed, but I wanted to start by explaining my general reasoning for the removals and get your thoughts. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Any thoughts on this, IP editors/others? Ganesha811 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Further thoughts for IP editor: another key issue here is WP:SUMMARY summary style. Several times you have mentioned in edit summaries that "more information is good" and other sentiments along that line. But a Wikipedia page should be a summary of a persons life. Not everything someone does or says is worth inclusion. Including too much detail might weight the page towards non-neutrality or promotionalism, or simply confuse the reader. Please take a look at the changes I am making and do not just revert them on spec - I'm trying to improve the article by reorganizing and trimming. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of PROMO material is always appreciated. Which details did you remove, Ganesha811? JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of promotional material, overdetail 

message: :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: Not moved   (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl von Habsburg →  – This man is Austrian. Use of the particule von is illegal in Austria, so he does not use it, and it is wrong for Wikipedia to suggest that he does. He calls himself Karl Habsburg-Lothringen and represented his country in the European Parliament under that name. Opera hat (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 March 2021 

message: "He was the first royal person and head of a royal house to contract the virus" testing positive with any of those tests isn't proof of having "contracted the virus". The article has to be rewritten in this regard. --105.0.4.181 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covid-Test 

message: Like all former Austrian aristocracy he got stripped of all titles of nobility back in the days. He has no "von" in his name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.204.204 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed twice already and the consensus was to keep it. DrKay (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But for some reason, the article now does not contain even a single reference to the man's actual legal name – which is Karl Habsburg-Lothringen. Will add it to the lead and see if it survives subsequent revisions. Maistre Wace (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the "von"