This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Friedrich Wilhelm IV. from de.wikipedia. |
On 26 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Frederick William IV. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
You state "Despite being a devout Lutheran...." - this is incorrect. Ever since Johann Sigismund publicly accepted the Calvinistic (Reformed) faith on December 25th, 1613, the subsequent rulers of Brandenburg/Prussia have, for the most part, been faithful to their Calvinistic roots.
In fact, his predecessor, Friedrich Wilhelm III created the Prussian Union church. This new church was simply called the "Evangelical Church" and the terms Lutheran and Reformed were banned by the king in the early 1830s. Thus, under Friedrich Wilhelm III (in Prussia), the Lutheran church and the Reformed church were banned and the only state sanctioned church was the new union or Evangelical church.
Much had been written on this subject and details to verify this should be easy to find.
Lutherans in Pommern, Silesia, Brandenburg that disagreed with the kings edicts continued to practice their Lutheran faith and were arrested and fined. Their Lutheran pastors were thrown in jail. These Lutherans who disagreed with the king were eventually called "Altlutherische" or "Old Lutherans". They finally decided that the only way they could continue to practice their faith was to leave Prussia. From 1835 to the early 1850s, some 5,000 Prussian citizens stated on their government application papers that they wanted to leave Prussia due to religious reasons. Those "Old Lutherans" that came to America became the foundation for the different branches of the Lutheran church found in America today.
When Friedrich WIlhelm IV became king one of his first measures was to retract the toughest of Altenstein's laws and to release the Lutheran clergy still in prison and return them to their parishes. By 1843, the non-Union Lutherans were tolerated as a legitimate private organization of Lutheran brethren. Still they were required to pay surplice fees to the pastors of the United church, and to contribute money to the church and parsonage buildings. They were refused permission to call themselves the "Lutheran church" or to even call their buildings of worship "churches." Still, it was not until 1908 that they were allowed, on the basis of a law modifying the general concessions of 1845, to call themselves "Verein der evangelische altlutherischen Kirchengemeinden" (Association of Evangelical Old Lutheran Church Congregations).
Thus, although Friedrich Wilhelm IV did grant a few concessions to the Lutherans in Prussia, he was by no means a "Lutheran" himself. He was likely raised in the Reformed faith, and during his rule he preserved the Union church his father worked so hard for.
Tom
Why is his name listed in an English equivalent first, and then German in parentheses, almost like the original is English? Can someone fix his name please? 112.198.98.30 ( talk) 15:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually looked at the German wiki, and they use English names for the English royals. Changing German historical figures to English names is a form of racism and vandalism. 73.220.34.167 ( talk) 19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
These are the guidelines for names in the encycloypaedia: ("Wikipedia: Naming conventions (use English)"): The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources ... Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by METRANGOLO1 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frederick William IV of Prussia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Those that supported the move believed that the target is concise enough while still satisfying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCROY. Those that opposed the move point that the current titles are already WP:COMMONNAME; thus I see no consensus in support or against the move. Since the current title is the last stable title, nothing happens. ( non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 17:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
– Frederick William IV is unambiguous. Frederick William III is already treated as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And Frederick William II is almost surely the primary topic based on pageviews [1]. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
As others rightly note, showing the country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear.An unsubstantiated opinion. I do not see where anybody here has made such an argument let alone others (plural).
Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers ...Unsubstantiated opinion.
... is out of step with other reputable encyclopedias like Britannica ...Britannica is but one encyclopedia (not plural). There are few online encyclopedias that would be considered WP:RSs but Oxford Reference would use Frederick William II (1744–97) in two English language publications. The one actual example given is refuted in plural.
In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title- ie, we are being told by WP:P&G that we generally prefer the expanded names as article titles over abbreviations. For the names of people, WP:CONCISE (at WP:AT) would state:
... given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision(with a specific link to WP:NCP). We are told by WP:P&G that we generally use both the given name and surname of a person in an article title. Bothell, Washington is preferred by the naming convention WP:USPLACE at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is specifically recognised by WP:AT. 103rd United States Congress is a numeric sequence consistent with the parent article United States Congress, where Congress is another topic and, while there may not be a need to disambiguate the 103rd Congress, there is a need to disambiguate other congresses (eg 1st Congress). There is, therefore, a strong logical argument to maintain consistency across the numeric series of titles. For one reason, a common pattern facilitates the infobox template coding to link to preceding and succeeding congresses in the infobox.
Also, just to be very clear about this: Wikipedia nowhere asserts that the most concise unambiguous title is necessarily the best one.At WP:TITLEDAB (part of WP:AT):
According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary.WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is specifically referred to at WP:PRECISION (part of WP:AT). It would tell us that while a term preferred for a title may be ambiguous, if there is a primary target for this otherwise ambiguous term, then the preferred term should nonetheless be used for the article which is the primary target. The arguments being made here are that these shorter titles are either unambiguous or that they are reasonably the primary target. WP:OVERPRECISION is an alternative shortcut for WP:PRECISION at WP:AT. It gives the example,
... Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough ...Frederick William # of Prussia is a very similar form to Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Just as Mother Teresa is precise enough, Frederick William # is also precise enough because these titles are the primary topics. WP:AT is clearly asserting that we should only apply sufficient precision to resolve ambiguity between titles of other articles, notwithstanding some exceptions that are given at WP:AT or acknowledged naming conventions and like. Names such as this with the pattern X of Y exist because of a somewhat mandatory naming pattern that existed at WP:NCROY which was in conflict with the policy at WP:AT and actual practice. This inconsistency has now been remedied by this RfC.
I contend we likewise have such reasons hereis fallacious.
those familiar but not necessarily experts in the areawill recognise as the name of the subject. This is the distinction between using Frederick William IV v Friedrich Wilhelm IV, Peter the Great v Peter I or William the Conqueror v William I. Adding of Prussia is a matter of precision. It distinguishes (disambiguates) these Frederick Williams from other Frederick Williams - if necessary. However, if these Frederick Williams do not need disambiguation (mainly here because they are the primary target) then the extra precision is redundant. Furthermore, while of Prussia may be natural disambiguation, it is not necessarily the natural way to introduce them in prose in other articles. Removing unnecessary precision will tend to obviate the need to use piped links. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Friedrich Wilhelm IV. from de.wikipedia. |
On 26 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Frederick William IV. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
You state "Despite being a devout Lutheran...." - this is incorrect. Ever since Johann Sigismund publicly accepted the Calvinistic (Reformed) faith on December 25th, 1613, the subsequent rulers of Brandenburg/Prussia have, for the most part, been faithful to their Calvinistic roots.
In fact, his predecessor, Friedrich Wilhelm III created the Prussian Union church. This new church was simply called the "Evangelical Church" and the terms Lutheran and Reformed were banned by the king in the early 1830s. Thus, under Friedrich Wilhelm III (in Prussia), the Lutheran church and the Reformed church were banned and the only state sanctioned church was the new union or Evangelical church.
Much had been written on this subject and details to verify this should be easy to find.
Lutherans in Pommern, Silesia, Brandenburg that disagreed with the kings edicts continued to practice their Lutheran faith and were arrested and fined. Their Lutheran pastors were thrown in jail. These Lutherans who disagreed with the king were eventually called "Altlutherische" or "Old Lutherans". They finally decided that the only way they could continue to practice their faith was to leave Prussia. From 1835 to the early 1850s, some 5,000 Prussian citizens stated on their government application papers that they wanted to leave Prussia due to religious reasons. Those "Old Lutherans" that came to America became the foundation for the different branches of the Lutheran church found in America today.
When Friedrich WIlhelm IV became king one of his first measures was to retract the toughest of Altenstein's laws and to release the Lutheran clergy still in prison and return them to their parishes. By 1843, the non-Union Lutherans were tolerated as a legitimate private organization of Lutheran brethren. Still they were required to pay surplice fees to the pastors of the United church, and to contribute money to the church and parsonage buildings. They were refused permission to call themselves the "Lutheran church" or to even call their buildings of worship "churches." Still, it was not until 1908 that they were allowed, on the basis of a law modifying the general concessions of 1845, to call themselves "Verein der evangelische altlutherischen Kirchengemeinden" (Association of Evangelical Old Lutheran Church Congregations).
Thus, although Friedrich Wilhelm IV did grant a few concessions to the Lutherans in Prussia, he was by no means a "Lutheran" himself. He was likely raised in the Reformed faith, and during his rule he preserved the Union church his father worked so hard for.
Tom
Why is his name listed in an English equivalent first, and then German in parentheses, almost like the original is English? Can someone fix his name please? 112.198.98.30 ( talk) 15:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually looked at the German wiki, and they use English names for the English royals. Changing German historical figures to English names is a form of racism and vandalism. 73.220.34.167 ( talk) 19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
These are the guidelines for names in the encycloypaedia: ("Wikipedia: Naming conventions (use English)"): The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources ... Sometimes the usual English version will differ somewhat from the local form (Aragon, Venice, Normandy; Franz Josef Strauss, Victor Emmanuel III, Christopher Columbus). Rarely, as with Germany or Mount Everest, it will be completely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by METRANGOLO1 ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frederick William IV of Prussia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Those that supported the move believed that the target is concise enough while still satisfying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCROY. Those that opposed the move point that the current titles are already WP:COMMONNAME; thus I see no consensus in support or against the move. Since the current title is the last stable title, nothing happens. ( non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 17:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
– Frederick William IV is unambiguous. Frederick William III is already treated as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And Frederick William II is almost surely the primary topic based on pageviews [1]. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
As others rightly note, showing the country is important in the interests of our readers and necessary to make the subject of such articles sufficiently clear.An unsubstantiated opinion. I do not see where anybody here has made such an argument let alone others (plural).
Removing it isn’t an improvement for our readers ...Unsubstantiated opinion.
... is out of step with other reputable encyclopedias like Britannica ...Britannica is but one encyclopedia (not plural). There are few online encyclopedias that would be considered WP:RSs but Oxford Reference would use Frederick William II (1744–97) in two English language publications. The one actual example given is refuted in plural.
In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title- ie, we are being told by WP:P&G that we generally prefer the expanded names as article titles over abbreviations. For the names of people, WP:CONCISE (at WP:AT) would state:
... given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision(with a specific link to WP:NCP). We are told by WP:P&G that we generally use both the given name and surname of a person in an article title. Bothell, Washington is preferred by the naming convention WP:USPLACE at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is specifically recognised by WP:AT. 103rd United States Congress is a numeric sequence consistent with the parent article United States Congress, where Congress is another topic and, while there may not be a need to disambiguate the 103rd Congress, there is a need to disambiguate other congresses (eg 1st Congress). There is, therefore, a strong logical argument to maintain consistency across the numeric series of titles. For one reason, a common pattern facilitates the infobox template coding to link to preceding and succeeding congresses in the infobox.
Also, just to be very clear about this: Wikipedia nowhere asserts that the most concise unambiguous title is necessarily the best one.At WP:TITLEDAB (part of WP:AT):
According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary.WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is specifically referred to at WP:PRECISION (part of WP:AT). It would tell us that while a term preferred for a title may be ambiguous, if there is a primary target for this otherwise ambiguous term, then the preferred term should nonetheless be used for the article which is the primary target. The arguments being made here are that these shorter titles are either unambiguous or that they are reasonably the primary target. WP:OVERPRECISION is an alternative shortcut for WP:PRECISION at WP:AT. It gives the example,
... Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough ...Frederick William # of Prussia is a very similar form to Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Just as Mother Teresa is precise enough, Frederick William # is also precise enough because these titles are the primary topics. WP:AT is clearly asserting that we should only apply sufficient precision to resolve ambiguity between titles of other articles, notwithstanding some exceptions that are given at WP:AT or acknowledged naming conventions and like. Names such as this with the pattern X of Y exist because of a somewhat mandatory naming pattern that existed at WP:NCROY which was in conflict with the policy at WP:AT and actual practice. This inconsistency has now been remedied by this RfC.
I contend we likewise have such reasons hereis fallacious.
those familiar but not necessarily experts in the areawill recognise as the name of the subject. This is the distinction between using Frederick William IV v Friedrich Wilhelm IV, Peter the Great v Peter I or William the Conqueror v William I. Adding of Prussia is a matter of precision. It distinguishes (disambiguates) these Frederick Williams from other Frederick Williams - if necessary. However, if these Frederick Williams do not need disambiguation (mainly here because they are the primary target) then the extra precision is redundant. Furthermore, while of Prussia may be natural disambiguation, it is not necessarily the natural way to introduce them in prose in other articles. Removing unnecessary precision will tend to obviate the need to use piped links. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)