Talk:Kingdom of Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

King of the Romans vs King of the Germans[edit]

Can the folks who believe that the King of the Germans (Rex Teutonicorum) ruled over Germany, rather than the Holy Roman Empire, explain if this title was different from King of the Romans (Rex Romanorum)? As far as I'm aware these two titles are the same. That the King of the Romans was sometimes called King of the Germans is similar to the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor (Romanorum Imperator) was sometimes called the German Emeperor (Imperator Teutonicorum). Machinarium (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are basically the same. Why? Srnec (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the title King of the Romans was a claim to rule over the romans, and thus the entire empire, not just German lands. The latter suggestion was generally avoided in the first few centuries of the Empire's existence. Scales explains this well:
"One fact above all renders implausible the notion that rulers in the Post-Staufer period aspired to a German kingship distinct from the Empire: the pains which their own chanceries took to avoid mentioning such a kingship in their documents. Even Frederick II's sons were almost always styled, in traditional fashion, 'king of the Romans' in their public acts, as were the 'Interregnum' kings: official invocations of their 'German' kingship, if in some ways suggestive, are few, indeed anomalous. Nord did conventions change in the decades that followed. (..) Henry VII judged it a dishonour to be adressed, disregarding his Roman title, as 'King of Germany' (rex Alamannie). Invocations of a 'German' kingship are almost entirely absent from Latin documents in the ruler's name: and the few examples which do occur are usually identifiable as the product of special circumstances. The signs are that the term was consciously avoided. It is found only slightly more often in writings issued by the electors and other princes.
p. 174
Also please read the following:
"But over what, and whom was this 'royal power' to be exercised? To what kind of kingdom did Charlemagne's aurea sedes regni hold the key? A German one, perhaps - paralleling the Burgandian and Lombard crowns which the Empire's ruler might receive at Arles and Milan? Certainly, there were those who believe it to be. The diploma of 1166 conferring sainthood upon Charlemagne had named Aachen as 'the head and seat of the kingdom of Germany.' Johannes von Buch, in his gloss on the Sachsenspiegel (c 1325), explained that the ruler's first coronation made him 'king over all the German lands.' For Heinrich von herford, writing in the time of Charles IV, the Frankish emperor himself had decreed that a king was to be crowned in Aachen 'for Germany' (pro Theutonia), just as coronation at Monza would make him king of the Lombards, and in Rome 'emperor of the world.'
Such a satisfyingly clear resolution was not, alas supported by the facts of the chronicler's own day. from the time of his first elevation, the ruler's official titles announced a kingship over the Romans, not the Germans, while his public acts assumed from the start the power to rule through the Empire's territories. His regalia, including the famous octagonal crown (which tradition identified as Charlemagne's own), were used without distinction both for 'royal' coronations and for the creation of emperors of in Rome. It therefore made perfect sense when another chronicler wrote of the 'advocacy of the Roman Empire' being conferred on the new king at Aachen. The distinctiveness of the Empire's constituent regna was further eroded by the shift tracable in German constitutional thinking during the fourteenth century, towards affirming election, not coronation, as the constitutive act in making a ruler. (...)
Yet writings of diverse kinds nevertheless clung firmly to the notion that north of the Alps there existed, in some sense, a 'kingdom,' which lay within, but was not identical with, the Empire - even if, in the late Middle Ages, the distinction between the two became somewhat less easily discernible than in earlier times. And a special link between the rule of this kingdom and the German people and their lands seemed, in the eyes of many, as hard to deny as it was precisely to define"
pp. 154-155
I think these excerpts explain the controversy that exists around this article. Currently, the distinction between German kingdom and Roman Empire is too clearly emphasized. While the idea of the existence of a German kingdom certainly existed (and changed throughout the centuries), it was not a clearly defined constituent difference. Machinarium (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the German kings claimed to rule over the Romans by right. I also agree with Scales that "that rulers in the Post-Staufer period [did not] aspire to a German kingship distinct from the Empire" and that "the term [King of Germany] was consciously avoided" by the royal/imperial chancery. Where have I ever suggested otherwise? Of course, Scales is correct, too, that "in the late Middle Ages, the distinction between the two became somewhat less easily discernible". I know I stated the same thing in an earlier round of this debate.
This article needs work. Nobody denies it. But what is wrong with an article on "a 'kingdom,' which lay within, but was not identical with, the Empire" that " existed, in some sense" to the "north of the Alps" during the Middle Ages? And why can't we call it "Kingdom of Germany", as many historians do? Srnec (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that you support change of this article's content, so I'm just trying to seek some common ground here. I don't really mind that we call it Kingdom of Germany anymore, though I would support explaining that this is all but a modern translation of Regnum Teutonicum. Anyway, I'm invoking Scales here because I believe the content of this article should be more similar to the content of the German wikipedia article. Currently the article starts with a quote from Gillingham, who calls Germany "a single, indivisible political unit throughout the middle ages." This is a fringe view, and contradicts what Scales and other authors have written. Other editors have already tried to explain that we should carefully distinguish historians who use the term "Germany" for convenience from those historians who give an accurate description of medieval statehood. In fact, now that I've been able to read Gillingham's article, he admits doing this himself: "For the purpose of this essay I am simply assuming that 'medieval Germany' lasted from the tenth century to the fifteenth century. I also set aside complications such as the relationships between the Reich and the kingdoms of Bohemia, burgundy and Italy." (first page, footnote 1). I thus suggest we remove Gillingham's description and explain better the complication surrounding the idea of a German kingdom. Machinarium (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also coming round to the view that we need to work on the article rather than delete it or reduce it to a redirect. Clearly I would want to start from something that looks more like the German article and advance cautiously from there. If others do the same from their positions we should move towards a consensus that, hopefully, also reflects the sources well. And anything that is removed from the article should be moved to the appropriate article elsewhere in Wikipedia, unless we agree it is fundamentally wrong. Bermicourt (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Write on the first line of the lead "The Kingdom of Germany is a modern concept used by some historians..." and then the rest. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a medieval concept. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Certainly there was a medieval concept, certainly not this one here. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So what was the medieval concept? Srnec (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose any effort to describe the "Kingdom of Germany" as some sort of concept made up by modern historians. It is a term used by modern historians to describe an entity that existed at the time. john k (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we all agree that Regnum Teutonicum was a term used in mediaeval times to describe an "entity". What we are debating is what that entity was. It certainly wasn't an independent kingdom run by a king. It was a descriptor of those myriad states in the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. What may be a modern (British/American?) construct is the term "Kingdom of Germany" to imply a real kingdom. The very term is confusing as some of the sources admit. The problem is that if you read Wikipedia - not just here I hasten to add - you could get the firm impression that Germany existed as a joined up independent kingdom under a recognized sovereign king. It never did; at least not in the sense that there was a Kingdom of England or Kingdom of France. That's why German authors never use the term. They don't need to. What's needed is a consensus revision of this article (and others) to reflect how the term is really used. If we keep arguing at the current level, we'll never get anywhere. Bermicourt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean, wasn't it a kingdom run by a king, at least up to the fall of the Hohenstaufens? As I think has been discussed in the past (I assume everything has been discussed in the past, since we've been going round on this for like a decade), if anything, it is the "Holy Roman Empire" which is a made up phantom in the High Middle Ages, not the Kingdom of Germany, which had clear institutions and so forth. The issue is that later, as the Burgundian and Italian Kingdoms gradually ceased to exist, German institutions effectively got turned into imperial institutions, and the German Kingdom more or less became the "Holy Roman Empire," although obviously there were still some vestigial traces of the Empire in Italy and Burgundy. But in, say, 1150, I'm not sure why we should see the Kingdom of Germany as being particularly less real than any other European kingdom. john k (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, John. What else would it be than a kingdom run by a king? Speaking for the High Middle Ages there still was actual royal power. The kings could assign fiefs and theoretically reclaim them. They could convene a court diet and call to arms. Under the Salian dynasty German kings had more royal power than the French kings. The German kingdom basically started out strong in the 10th and 11th century and grew weaker over the following centuries in favor of smaller lords.--MacX85 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@John K. "Wasn't it a kingdom run by a king..." No. The "Kingdom of Germany" was a euphemism for the territories of the HRE north of the Alps. It had no meaning except in the context of the HRE. The "king" was in fact the HRE. However, confusingly, the prince-electors who AFAIK came from N of the Alps elected a "King of the Romans" who then went forward to be crowned HRE. So as others have explained it was a ceremonial title akin to "Emperor-in-waiting" If there really was a real Kingdom of Germany, one would expect to see it writ large in the German literature and on German Wikipedia, but it isn't. In English literature, it seems to be a modern shorthand either for the HRE or to refer to mainly German-speaking territories (but of course not all of them were). It would be interesting to research how various authors define the phrase themselves, but in most of the examples I've seen they don't; there is just a vague description or none at all. But feel free to check this out. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not used to refer to the HRE. What is "It had no meaning except in the context of the HRE." supposed to mean? We all agree that the Kingdom of Germany is a subset of the Holy Roman Empire. That's like saying England has no meaning except in the context of the UK... Yes the German kings strongly expected to be crowned emperor and made their claim visible by bearing the title "King of the Romans". Yet not every one did become emperor. Also there the kingdoms of Italy and Burdundy. Do you declare them nonexistent as well because there was only one king/emperor to rule over them all?
It's also not true that it doesn't appear in German speaking literature. I read "Das Reich im Mittelalter" by Stefan Weinfurtner. He does mention the "deutsches Reich" or "deutsches Königreich" and "regnum teutonicum" more than once. In fact he has a whole chapter about it being different from the imperium.--MacX85 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Be careful, there was a Kingdom of England, a sovereign state ruled by a king. The UK did not appear until about 300 years ago when it united with the Kingdom of Scotland. However, there was no equivalent "Kingdom of Germany" that was independent and sovereign; there were only German-speaking states ruled by princes of various types, but they were all part of the HRE along with other non-German speaking states. The title "King of the Romans" was used by a king elected from the German-speaking states as a precursor to being elected HRE. Italy and Arles (or Burgundy) are separate cases that need treating on their merits - don't conflate them with this issue. Bermicourt (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a kingdom of East Francia (which would be called Germany later) before there was a trinity of the kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy however brief it may have been and the idea of calling that trinity the Holy Roman Empire wasn't around from the get go. Initially the emperor was supposed to be the earthly head of all of Catholic christendom.--MacX85 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, a request for consensus[edit]

I see that once again nothing has changed. I would like to ask Srnec and GermanJoe, is there any compromise you would agree with? Do you understand the concerns of people here? We have long tried to find a common ground in either a split, a merge, a move or even a delete, but there is no way we will achieve consensus without some willingness from your side. The issue is clear: the "Kingdom of Germany" is virtually unknown in English. Try a google search and you will find no such thing as the article describes. In all fairness, it's a rough (mis)translation of a specific German term (Deutsches Reich) with heavy implications. What takes the cake here is that even long after this period of time the English still referred to the entire Mid-Germanic region as Dutch. I simply can't comprehend why this article name would suit it. The only real obstable to a consensus so far is that we can not decide on what to move/rename it to. I'm asking you (and others) to reach out here, since plenty of people on the talk page have long voiced their disagreement with the current status of the article. You two have been active in these discussions and so invariably play a part in what comes next. I have no doubt of your good intentions and commitment, which is why I'm reopening this with a Request for Consensus on how to deal with the matter at hand.

I don't want to be the one to keep pushing this though. If nothing comes from it or consensus decides that it should remain the same, I will of course agree with this decision. Any comments are appreciated. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Those google Hits are overwhelmingly for the contemporary "micronation" "created" by "former chef and martial arts trainer ... Peter Fitzek, the 48-year-old self-proclaimed monarch of the so-called Königsreich Deutschland, or kingdom of Germany." (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in random requests for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And that is why I have also provided some more reliable sources; here is another one. By the way, if you search for "Kingdom of Germany" -wikipedia -fitzek, you can most likely get rid of those particular false positives. Any more false positives? Be creative and exclude their characteristic terms too ;) - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt there are sources mentioning it but they all struggle with the correct terminology. You have to agree there. Searching for the "Kingdom of Germany" gives the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire (of WW1), the Micronation, pretty much every -dom before there is any mention of what we describe in this article.
First of all, even though I and our texts will talk about Germany, you need to get that out of your head. There was no Germany in the sense of a nation or even a kingdom (even though there was indeed a King of the Germans). ... In turn, neither the Kingdom of Italy nor the Kingdom of Germany was much of a kingdom. Rather, these were merely titles representing a claim over a collection of powers that had managed to become more or less independent.
-Dr. E.L. Skip Knox [1] Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, he doesn't have to agree. In fact, he might agree with me that it is you who is struggling here with correct English terminology.
I'm glad you've found one online source that backs you up. It seems, however, that Dr. Knox is struggling with terminology, since he implies that the Duchy of Burgundy, which was always French, belonged to the Empire. His map, note, says clearly "Kingdom of Germany".
If the issue is that medieval Germany is not the same thing as modern Germany, to this we can certainly all agree. Of course, medieval France isn't modern France, medieval Italy isn't modern Italy, etc. Why does it seem that only Germany trips people up? Srnec (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You are being extremely disruptive. Not once have you acknowledged a problem with this article despite years of controversy. As for your question: medieval Germany was never united. Medieval Italy comes from the Roman term Italia. Medieval France comes from Francia. Germany comes from Germania, which was something else entirely. Germany was first united in the 19th century. You are now arguing with an academic historian. WP:TRUTH. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT: I see (Latin: Regnum Teutonicum, "Teutonic Kingdom"). Is there a name in the German language for the Kingdom of Germany? Also the time range/life span of a defunct state is pretty basic to its description, it would be nice to see some sort of date for the Kingdom's beginning and its ending (if only approximate or time range) at the beginning of the lede. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

@BoogaLouie: Try Deutsches Reich as mentioned in OP. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: so: German: Deutsches Reich . Was that the name of the kingdom? Should that follow the name of the article in the lede? ("OP" ?) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie: Well, in modern German it —Regnum Teutonicum— is referred to as Deutsches Reich; not sure if it was the same back then, when Latin was Europe's lingua franca (hence the Latin in the current lead). And OP=Original post=the initial RfC statement. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: @Prinsgezinde: So Regnum Teutonicum was the official name used at court and so on? Any royal crest or something with the kingdom's name? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. It's probably the most precise, unambiguous term for the realm. Earlier concencus seemed to vote against it though. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
But we do not use Regnum Teutonicum because of WP:ENGLISH. Try to see things without the historio-linguistic ancestry. We are dealing here with an entity to the north of the Alps; an entity that together with Italy and Burgundy formed the Holy Roman Empire; an entity that (at least initially) was composed of duchies, whose dukes would elect a king for that entity. As evidenced in numerous archived discussions, there is a plethora of English sources that refer to this entity as the kingdom of Germany and without other attested English alternatives, "kingdom of Germany" seems like the way to go. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the reputation of this very early Deutsches Reich mostly came from the Nazi term Drittes Reich, implying that this was the first of these Reichs. Perhaps we have to use that word after all. Apart from "Realm" there is just no good translation. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Put your concerns away. People were calling it the kingdom of Germany long before the Nazis came around. I've cited early modern books before, so I'm not going to do it again. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Who was, Srnec? You take isolated examples. Show me a historical consensus or it won't matter. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

QUESTION: @Prinsgezinde: what name for the article do you propose? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in randomly chosen requests for comment)

@BoogaLouie: I previously advocated Regnum Teutonicum, and I still do. It's precise and by far the most accurate, and people familiar with the obscure entity will know the name. It's also its name on the German wiki page. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to note that Regnum Teutonicum is often the preferred term by historians; see [2] [3] [4] [5]. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: @Prinsgezinde: If there is no agreement on Regnum Teutonicum because of WP:ENGLISH may I suggest Kingdom of Germany (843-1125), or if that seems too exact maybe Kingdom of Germany (9th Century to 12th Century) as an article title. BoogaLouie (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Well, my primary complaint (and that of others, I believe) is that the term "Kingdom of Germany" for this entity is imprecise, uncommon, confusing and somewhat incorrect. It was no Kingdom (as it was not united) and both the term and concept of "Germany" were still far away. Back then this specific region was known as diutisciu land or "German Lands". I would support "Kingdom of the German Lands", but it could be shaky. Again, it really is a language issue. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
BoogaLouie, what happened in 1125?
Bataaf van Oranje, the German kingdom was as united as anything in the Middle Ages. The concept of "Germany" (Germania or Deutschland) was current. Srnec (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Was it really? Because in the Battle of Vlaardingen it was quite obvious that the "King of Germany" (actually the Holy Roman Emperor, but okay) had pretty much no power in Holland, which according to this article and map fell under the mysterious "Kingdom". And please stop with those misleading false translations. "Deutschland" was unknown at the time and "Germania" and "Germany" are two completely different entities. If you wish to change it to "Kingdom of Germania" I would welcome that, however. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You would welcome a change from the current title, which is widely used in reliable sources, to "Kingdom of Germania", which is completely unknown? What does this tell us about your motivation?
That the king/emperor of Germany had little power in Holland in 1018 is completely irrelevant to the question of the unity of the realm. Shall we list all the battles kings lost in their own countries? The king of France couldn't always control the barons around Paris, much less in Gascony. Later, in 1254–56, the count of Holland was the undisputed and internationally recognized king of Dutchland (Germany). Srnec (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
"widely used in reliable sources"? This again? No one even has any idea what the "Kingdom of Germany" means. It's utterly obscure. It's used only as a bad modern translation in a few sources while the rest calls it "East Francia". It's also vague and incorrect. You're being very stubborn after so many people have already complained about the title. Oh, so "Dutchland" is also Germany now? Your Germanocentric views are really hurting your reliability. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Dutchland = Deutschland/Duitsland. Until the 16th century, there was no distinction between the present-day Netherlands and modern Germany, neither in English nor in Dutch/German. And why should it have existed? 500 or 1,000 years ago, no one knew that there would eventually be two different nation states. Back then, no one had any reason to distinguish a Germanic Hollander from a Germanic Bavarian. The Germanic tribes were perceived as individual peoples and at the same time as a unit. And this Germanic entity was mainly (not exclusively though) referred to as duytsch/deutsch and Dutch (in English). As to the name of the article, it should, in my opinion, be changed to German realm as this does both confirm the existence of such an entity and coevally recognize that it was not a firm political entity but rather a "floating state", a conglomeration of German(ic) lands. -- Orthographicus (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

German kings[edit]

Hi,
I would just like to point out that a number of Wikipedia articles, like "Germany", "Holy Roman Empire", "Walk to Canosssa", "Otto I" etc. etc. speak of German kings. In that sense, at least, "common" seems to be established. Any name change to "rex teutonicus" (or "konungr thiodiska" - why not go all the way?) will mean weeks of search-and-destroy across this eminent internett encyclopedia.
Anyone who feels the world is hard done by in historico-linguistic inaccuracy is welcome to fight the good fight over at the article on "Vikings" which should properly be about the Norse, but the brits see that differently :)
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
A "German king" is a king who is German; it doesn't prove that there was a "Kingdom of Germany". It's a description of nationality. Bermicourt (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please see wikt:German. The term is ancient and once referred to the citizens of Germania. Modern scholars and translators alike often use "German" and "Germanic" inconsistently, as unfortunately no alternative form exists in the English language. Compare the older version Germanus. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

Anachronism or not, several respected modern historians use the terminology "German kingdom" or "Kingdom of Germany" for 10th century East Francia (please look up the archives, not going to repeat them yet again). Wikipedia editors do not analyze the "correctness" of such terms, but follow the lead of these experts. An exaggerated example to make the point clear: if modern historians would call the entity "Smurfian Empire", we would need to follow their usage - it is not our call as editors to second-guess and interpret the work of recognized experts, no matter how strongly we may disagree with them. Also, and this should be obvious for experienced editors: when a change gets reverted by a disagreeing editor, the issue should be discussed at the talkpage instead of edit-warring. GermanJoe (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Several historians use "Teutonic Empire" and a translation thereof, which was only after the 11th century. Any other says "East Francian kingdom". So now even the few historians who use that translation don't agree on what it refers to. That's why it's vague.
  • It's not "vague", it's complicated. And this complex topic is sufficiently summarized in the article's lead section, and later explained in more detail. The article also mentions disputed and unclear aspects. But we are going around in circles - all these points have been discussed again and again in previous threads and RfCs, where editors didn't find a consensus. Admittedly there are different viewpoints, but the current version is undeniably based on reliable sources. Unless there are new arguments for a different approach, you shouldn't unilaterally change a contested subject area without consensus. I'll leave it at that, as an endless repetition of old arguments on both sides is not constructive. GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is complicated. But (mainly German) historians have been trying to simplify it for centuries by entirely characterizing the Holy Roman Empire as German, even long before it was known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. So now we have provinces like County of Holland immediately stating that they were a state in the Holy Roman Empire, and then that article immediately stating that it was mostly the Kingdom of Germany. This was while it had absolutely nothing to do with Germany. That doesn't hint at some nationalism to you? The problem with the RfCs is that nothing came out of it because, and no accusatory stance should be interpreted here, mainly Srnec and sometimes you were against such changes. But now it seems that any changes that try to complexify this are invalid. Srnec has previously stated that he opposes any changes of such nature to the article and yet the problems persist. To further illustrate this anachronism and metonymy, until recently the Category:Holy Roman Emperors was within the Category:German emperors. By extension, Charlemagne and others were thusly in the category of "German Emperors" and "Germans by profession". This is what's the problem. Simplification leads to falsehoods. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Perceived separate flaws in other articles or categories should be discussed on the appropriate talkpages, not here. Regarding the previous discussions, several other editors have disagreed with previous proposals or have offered differing suggestions (look up previous threads and RfCs). The dispute is not as clear-cut as you describe it. Additional modern sources to support the current handling have been provided, they can be easily found in the talkpage archives. Your opinion, that these sources are biased or just plainly wrong in using "anachronistic" terminology, is WP:OR - and a bit presumptuous towards acknowledged modern experts, who do such research for a living. Previous proposals for changes have failed to achieve a consensus, not because they have been stonewalled for the sake of it, but because their arguments failed to convince a sufficient number of contributing editors. This "no consensus" outcome should be accepted, especially when the current handling is supported by reliable modern sources. I know, it's only an essay, but without new arguments it would really be better to drop the stick and move on. GermanJoe (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would happily drop the stick if it wasn't one editor stonewalling this subject. Numerous complaints have been raised and I have not yet seen Srnec try to reach a shared consensus. Instead, I see ownership behaviour. I'm sad to see Germans feel so strongly about this that no discussion can come forth. You'd think such an immensely important entity would receive more attention, but no one has even heard of this Kingdom which is why there is so little activity. I have yet to see a single scholar who states that literally the term "Kingdom of Germany" is a common subject with a clear definition. All I see now is WP:SYNTHESIS. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate it, if you'd keep the nationality of other editors out of the discussion. Such speculation about other editors' motives is entirely inappropriate - see WP:FOC. Your repeated misrepresentation of other editors' viewpoints and of the actual situation doesn't help either. It is not only "one editor" disagreeing with you, otherwise one of the umpteen past RfCs would have led to a consensus for your viewpoint. And there has been plenty of in-depth discussion, although it hasn't led to a consensus unfortunately. In short: your claim of being stonewalled is patently false (and a violation of WP:AGF to boot). Other editors are not obliged to repeat old discussions ad infinitum, when they have already explained the same points several times. Please read WP:IDHT and WP:dispute resolution for further advice. Anyway, I am done here - this exchange has no substantial new arguments and leads nowhere. GermanJoe (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The county of Holland was a part of the regnum teutonicum, as Scales, The Shaping of German Identity, pp. 461–62, says.
Also, I am not German, have never visited Germany and do not speak the language. Srnec (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Either way, articles that don't mention a "Kingdom of Germany" can not be used per WP:SYNTHESIS. That's the problem. They can be used in an article about medieval Germany, not this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)