Talk:Maurice, Prince of Orange

message: A nice, lengthy, and detailed account, which even includes pictures and succession boxes. I believe this article rides the line between Start-class and B-class. (If only there were a C, showing more than just a good start, and less than a B, which is to my mind, an article well on its way towards its final form.) In any case, as I see it, the article wants for two main things. (1) Better organization on the page - rearrange the pictures and the text somehow so it doesn't seem quite so jumbled. (2) The introduction paragraph should summarize all I need to know about the subject, and his historical significance. Dates and place of birth are a fine "introduction," in the strict sense of the word, that it goes at the beginning of a chronological account. But I believe that intros should be separate from the chronological biological section. Otherwise, thank you for a very nice start on an interesting subject. LordAmeth 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You call that detailed?  That's a pretty bare outline for a very major historical figure.  It doesn't even discuss his technical military innovations.  It doesn't make clear which side Maurice was on, and which Oldenbarnevelt, in the Calvinist/Arminian controversy.  It doesn't give any detail on military operations, and it generally doesn't get into too much detail on much of anything.  It's nice that there's pictures and succession boxes, but the article is pretty far from comprehensive. john k 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. I somehow got the wrong impression from reading it. I really don't know anything about this figure myself, so guessing at what's been left out is difficult. My mistake. LordAmeth 15:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not meant as an attack on you, but wouldn't it generally be a wise policy for people who are reasonably familiar with the subject of an article be the ones to review the quality of an article? john k 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there would be a certain logic to that. And I don't take it personally - I understand what you mean. But there is also a logic to having people review it who are historians, fairly well-learned in general, but who are not familiar with the topic, so as to better assess how accessible it is to the average reader. No? Essentially, I'm just trying to help get things assessed, and enjoying reading about subjects outside my usual field of focus. If assessments were restricted only to those who specialize in a particular subject, but not to those who wrote the article in the first place, entire swaths of history would never get assessed, don't you think? LordAmeth 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying specialists, per se, just people who have some familiarity.  I'm certainly not a specialized on early modern Holland.  But I know that Maurice is considered one of the leading military figures of his day, and that he made various technical innovations in terms of drill and tactics and such like.  I'm not sure of the details of any of this, which is why I haven't improved the article, but I'm aware that there's a lot of room for improvement.  I suppose you're right that we can't necessarily wait for somebody who knows the subject to assess it, but perhaps some kind of steps to insure at least basic familiarity (comparison with Britannica article, if one has access, for instance, or for historical figures, with 1911 britannica article.) john k 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Maurits prins van Oranje-edit 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 14, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 02:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Maurits prins van Oranje-edit 1.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: This article was moved today from Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange to Maurice, Prince of Orange, by the argument that there are no other Maurice's who were prince of Orange. Actually there is: Prince Maurits of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven. Besides that I feel it might be good to keep the "of Nassau". Maurice was 'just' Count of Nassau for most of his life, until his half-brother Philip William of Orange died in 1618, and so was known as "Maurice of Nassau" for most of his life, and is referred to as such in literature. Tom (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Princess Margriet's son is obviously known as Maurits and obviously isn't Prince of Orange. That title is presently held by his cousin, Willem-Alexander. William III of England was 'just' Prince of Orange for most of his life, yet the article isn't titled William of Orange, King of England. Normally, the highest title ever attained is used. Besides, Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange was inconsistent with Philip William, Prince of Orange, Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange and William II, Prince of Orange, all of whom were just as much "of Nassau" (i.e. the article are not titled Philip William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent move 

message: I think it should be emphasized more that Maurice tried to establish a Reformed dictatorship, as historian Pieter Geyl has pointed out. It's there but could be more distinct in the article. Those plans were partly thwarted by the succession of his brother Frederick Henry. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformed dictatorship 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maurice, Prince of Orange. 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/20120111084906/http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-NM-10152&lang=en to http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=NG-NM-10152&lang=en
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) 06:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The prince's given name is Maurits. Why is the anglicised form of his given name used in this article? ʍαμ$ʏ5043 16:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he has a major part in Dutch history? Mvdleeuw (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Given name evangelised

message: Why isn't his house listed in the info box? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And his children GamerKlim9716 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  House/Dynasty