Wikipedia

Talk:Holy Roman Empire/Archive 3 and Our Puzzling Encounters Considered: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Gasteropod (talk | contribs)
385 edits
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1:
{{Infobox Album | <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
{{WPCD}}
Name = Our Puzzling Encounters Considered |
{{reqmap}}
Type = [[Album]] |
Artist = [[Psyopus]] |
Cover = ‎Ourpuzzlingencountersconsidered.jpg‎ |
Released = February 20, 2007 |
Recorded = |
Genre = [[Hardcore]]/[[Technical Metal]] |
Length = 37 minutes |
Label = [[Metal Blade]] |
Producer = |
Reviews =
*[[All Music Guide]] {{Rating-5|3}} [http://www.allmusicguide.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:ryanqj15ojaa]
*[[Scenepointblank]] {{Rating-10|6}} [http://www.scenepointblank.com/reviews/1193]
*[[Stylus Magazine]] {{Rating-5|4}} [http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/psyopus/our-puzzling-encounters-considered.htm]
 
| Last album = ''[[Ideas of Reference]]''<br />(2004) |
[[:Image:Western empire verdun 843.png]] is crowded. A better map would be nice. &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])</sup> 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
| This album = ''Our Puzzling Encounters Considered''<br />(2007) |
| Next album = |
}}
 
'''''Our Puzzling Encounters Considered''''' is the second album by [[Psyopus]], released in 2007.
==beginning of the "Holy" part of the title==
 
==Track listing==
It would be useful to insert a date for the beginning of the 'Holy' part of the title. Sure not the Carolingians. Whose fault is it? Things to add for a better entry: the Electors; coronation by the popes, frequently in Milan; King of Germany; King of Rome; list of dynasties; anything else pressing? --MichaelTinkler
#"The Pig Keeper's Daughter" – 3:34
#"2" – 4:00
#"Scissor Fuck Paper Doll"– 3:36
#"Whore Meet Liar" – 1:54
#"Insects" – 3:16
#"Imogen's Puzzle Pt. 2" – 4:25
#"Play Some Skynyrd" – 0:32
#"Kill Us" – 4:52
#"Siobhan's Song" – 6:43
#"Happy Valentine's Day" - 3:11
#"Our Puzzling Encounters Considered" - 1:55
 
----
I think HRE came in with Otto in 962, but don't hold me to it. I have always heard that Otto's family were the Saxon dynasty, but the Imperial dynasty was the Ottonians...it's that Arnulfing/Pippinid/Carolingian thing. Aha -- Cantor (not entirely to be trusted because it's a gloss-everything-over textbook) Claims the HRE Started with Charlemagne but that C was crowned the first Western Roman Emperor (which makes me wonder what the Western Roman Emperors of the 4th and 5th centuries called themselves). Otto I was supposedly called king of the Romans. Otto II was first to use the title Emperor Augustus of the Romans -- no Holy. Just checked another source -- Otto I or II, Saxon OR Ottonian dynasty. [[User:JHK|JHK]]
:*sigh*. What ever got us interested in these people who couldn't even adopt clear entitulation? --MichaelTinkler
 
== Personnel ==
The "holy" appears in the title during the 11th century, during the Staufer dynasty. At that time there was a renewed interest in the old "Roman law" based on the Justinian Code. The Staufer emphasized that they were the Roman Emperors and that they had this dignity immediately from God and not via the Pope (which of course was factually incorrect). In the Roman/Byzantine documents the qualifier "holy" is frequently found in regard to anything connected with the Emperor. You have "holy bedroom", a "holy chamber" etc. It is funny that the term HRE has stuck with the Carolingian/Ottonian Empire and not with the Byzantine Empire that also used this epithet. That's probably because in the Eastern Empire there were a great many epithets so that the "holy" doesn't stick out in particular in contrast to the West where such titles were unusual.
*Adam Frapolli - Vocals
*Christopher Arp - Guitar
*Jon Cole - Drums
*Fred DeCoste - Bass
 
As for the beginning of the HRE - it starts either with Charlemagne's coronation or with its renewal through Otto's coronoation.
 
Otto and his predecessors were titled either "King of the Franks" or just "King" until Henry IV (not yet crowned Emperor) adopted the title "King of the Romans" - he did this to counter Pope Gregory VII dubbing him "Rex Teutonicum". The latter title emphasizes the national character of his rule, while the former emphasizes a global character.
 
[[Category:2007 albums]]
The first to call himself "Emperor of the Romans" was Otto II. His predecessors (starting with Charlemagne) had avoided the "of the Romans" part to avoid diplomatic conflict with the Eastern Empire who insisted on being the only Romans around.
 
[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 
It's standard practice in Germany and Italy to give 962 as the starting date of the HRE. Why do some British and American historians like to think they know better? [[User:Norvo|Norvo]] 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==End of the Middle Ages==
 
What end of the Middle Ages? just wondering.[[User:JHK|JHK]]
 
Any of them, depending on exactly how weak you want the Emperor to get. ;)
 
==Centralized==
 
Out of curiosity, how is it unsupportable to claim that the HRE was one of the most centralized kingdoms in Europe? French kings had very little control outside of Paris, the east and north were still somewhat chaotic, but the Imperial government could make decrees and expect people would at least pretend to listen.
:perhaps I should have said unsupported. The lack of clear succession, the shifting role of ministeriales, the endless Italian problem - all those sprang to my mind. The word 'centralized' has a definite implication for modern readers which has to be severely qualified to apply to any pre-modern organization, even including the Roman and Byzantine empires. (oh, and I hold no brief for the French - they were even worse, but that doesn't make the HRE a success!) --MichaelTinkler
 
Hence the qualifier ''most''. I'll agree the HRE had great disparities among its parts, and was never a tight knit government. However, since it is so often presented as the shadow it became in the 1600s and 1700s, I think it is worth commenting that at one point it was doing as well as could be expected. Otherwise it would seem we are simply replacing exaggerated success by exaggerated failure, the same applying to the Romans, Byzantines, and others as well.
:well, I suppose. I'm not a pessimist about much of anything else, but I find it hard to be enthusiastic about the success of government institutions in the middle ages. --MichaelTinkler
 
==S.R.I./H.R.R.==
 
''Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) was often written in official documents in Latin language as Sacrum Romanum Imperium , abbr. S.R.I. or in German language H. R. R. ('Heilig Roemisch Reich').''
 
Took this from the front page; can one of our historians extract the useful information and integrate it? --[[User:Stephen Gilbert|Stephen Gilbert]]
:To my thinking, it needs to go. Also, I am absolutely not convinced of the whole first use of SRI thing. I would like to see the source and a confirmation that 1254 was the first instance. Everybody agrees that HRE started with the Ottonians (unless they try to take it back to Charlemagne). I have NEVER seen anything to indicate that the Ottonians styled themselves plain old emperors. This is VERY DUBIOUS...[[:JHK|JHK]]
 
==Slovenia==
 
Slovenia should be added to the modern list of countries formerly found in the Holy Roman Empire. Slovene lands were added to the Empire in the 800's and remained in the Empire until dissolution in 1806.
 
==major extension==
 
I have done a major extension, but it's still just a first stab. It's only about major lines right now, and more dates are needed. Some comments are directly in the text. See also [[Talk:History of Germany]] for what I'm aiming for. -- [[User:Djmutex|djmutex]] 2003-04-30
 
==... Deutscher Nation==
 
Regarding the name, the variant ".. Deutscher Nation" is more common in German than the variant without it and commonly used in history books and papers; also cf.
 
* [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22Heiliges+R%F6misches+Reich%22+-%22Deutscher+Nation%22&btnG=Google+Search short variant] (550 hits)
* [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22Heiliges+R%F6misches+Reich+Deutscher+Nation%22&btnG=Google+Search long variant] (3800 hits)
 
I think it is unfair to classify this designation as a "[[user:H.J.]]ism", as it is still very much in modern use, not only by nationalists. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 05:55 25 May 2003 (UTC)
 
:[[user:H.J.]]-isms because it's her IP and she put that stuff in before. left a few curiosity (non- argument) questions on your talk page. [[User:JHK|JHK]]
 
:It appears that [[user:H.J.]] has been unbanned. No idea when or why this happened, though. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 06:05 25 May 2003 (UTC)
 
I have removed the "Deutscher Nation" suffix again. All the sources I could find confirm what is said in the section a little farther down that the suffix was only added later in the 15/16th century. Besides, the suffix shouldn't appear at the top where a translation of "Holy Roman Empire" is needed. [[User:Djmutex|Djmutex]] 16:59 27 May 2003 (UTC)
 
----
 
(sorry for my english...i am used to read, not write english)
 
The Name "Roman Empire" is used since the Ottonians and Salians; "Holy Roman Empire" is a term used by the Staufer (Frederick Barbarossa). But the official title of the emperor was: "[NAME] Dei gratia Romanorum imperator semper augustus" - "[Name] by the grace of God emperor of the Romans and always Augustus". In german, the word "Augustus" was translated as "Mehrer des Reiches" - approximately "Increaser of the Empire".
 
The title "Holy Roman empire of the German Nation" was used since the late 15. century, as the empire lost its old dominions in Italy and much of its supernational character. Before that, the emperors never called themself "German emperor" - they believed, they were the successors of the old Roman Empire ("Translatio Imperii" = the translation of the imperial crown by the coronation of Charlemagne (Karl der Große) and by the coronation of Otto the Great in 962).
 
I could post german refernce works. To example:
H. Mitteis, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, Munich 1992.
H. Thomas, Deutsche Geschichte des Spätmittelalters, Stuttgart 1983.
 
Or read the passages in the "New Cambridge Medieval History"
 
 
I've got a problem with the ''the'' in "of the German Nation". The German title doesn't have it (that would have to be "Heiliges Römisches Reich ''der '' Deutsche''n'' Nation), therefore the correct translation should be "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation".
 
This changes the meaning of the title significantly: "of German Nation" is merely a description of the empire itself, while "of the German Nation" sounds like an existing German Nation owns the Empire. (At least to me, with German being my native language I may not get the meaning of the english translation entirely correct).
 
Therefore I'd like to change that, provided nobody objects. [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 
: "German nation" is in the genitive; there's no way to translate it except as "of the German nation/people/community" or "of a German nation/people/community". "Of German nation" makes no sense in English - just looks like an article has been left out by mistake. Translating is not about rendering words into another language piece by piece. Besides, it doesn't sound like an existing German nation "owns" it, but rather that the Holy Roman Empire belonged to or was associated with the nation of German-speaking people of the time, which is exactly what the Latin and the German imply. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::Okay, that sounds like it was really a misinterpretation on my side. Thanks for the info [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 01:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
:: '... Deutscher Nation' was added in 1512-13 and refers specifically to the Central (and Nothern) European parts of the HRE, that is, without the Italian parts. [[User:Norvo|Norvo]] 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==elected kings and Clovis==
 
''German kings had been elected since time immemorial''. But Clovis passed his office to his son, and Charlemagne inherited his and passed on to his son. How is that? - [[User:Lev|Lev]]
 
Clovis wasn´t a german king. Germany developed from the collapsing Carolingian empire, but especially since the 12. century. And "germanic" and "german" isn´t the same...it would be the same, if historians would call all citizens of the USA "Indians".
 
==Map==
 
This article needs a map
::I completely agree. If nobody else uploads one, I will have to take a blank map of Europe (say from the CIA World Factbook) and draw the lines myself... Assuming it's OK, legally speaking (is it?) [[User:ShrimpEr|ShrimpEr]] 14:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).
 
::There are several maps in the German-language featured article [[:de:Heiliges Römisches Reich]] that show different stages of the HRE, e.g. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/3/3b/HRR_14Jh.jpg this one]. The legends are in German, though. [[User:Gestumblindi|Gestumblindi]] 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 
the map showing the hre teretory on actual borders is heavily inaccurate... most of silesia and pomerania is missing
 
:: True, the map ''The Holy Roman Empire around 1630'' is historically not correct, because it does not show Pomerania and Silesia being part of the Holy Roman Empire then. There are other minor faults. The map is really not worth being reproduced here! --[[User:DaQuirin|DaQuirin]] 13:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 
==Territories==
 
"Territories governed by a prince or duke, and in some cases kings. (Rulers of the Holy Roman Empire were not allowed to become a king within the Empire, but some had kingdoms outside the Empire, as was, for instance, the case in Great Britain, where the King was also the ruler of Hanover.) "
 
Wasn't the ruler of Bohemia (a territory, unlike Britain or Prussia, that was inside the empire) a king?
 
:Bohemia was a special case, in that its position as part of the Empire was, iirc, somewhat unique. But yes. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 06:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::I added that Bohemia was an exception.-Count Mippipopolous
 
==Hate it==
 
I hate this article. I simply hate it. The introduction is not clear at all in explaining what the Holy Roman Empire is, even granting the relative vagueness of the term 'HRE'. It goes into a lot of detail about whatever, but an encyclopedic article should be rather clear and brief -- this article is neither (at least from what I could tolerably finish reading). (What the heck did I just read?) [[User:Nortexoid|Nortexoid]] 05:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== The HRE resembles nothing of the EU! ==
 
Except for its Christian character, the Empire may be thought of as anticipating the European Union of today.
 
I reccomend someone remove this passage, as although I could see some vague similarities in that they both united different ethinc groups, but if anything it provides more of a basis for a German State, not a United Europe.
 
Well, the concept of the HRE was harkening back to the "universal empire" feel of the Romans and Alexander III. Thing was, with the HRE they had a much more binding force behind them: religion. The whole of Europe was united under the banner of "christendom" occassionally, and the Empire sought to make that permanent and real. Trouble was, the other states ''around'' the Reich were fucking that up. Read ''The Habsburgs'' by Andrew Wheatcroft, it explains that when talking about the settings into which the Habsburg family came into power.
-Alex, [[User:12.220.157.93|12.220.157.93]] 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC).
 
== first section ==
 
I was browsing this article and I found it distracting that the first sentence is interupted by list the name of the HRE in several different languages. Assuming that this information belongs in the article, could it be placed further down? I think the 1st para should give mainly the context and essential facts to orient the reader. I would normally [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold]], but in this case I'd rather defer to those of you who have been refining this article. [[User:Ike9898|ike9898]] 19:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 
==Voltaire quote==
Can anyone verify that quote, "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" actually came from Voltaire? I've read elsewhere that it originated from a biography and unintentionally misattributed to Voltaire. Can anyone get back to me on that?
*But I have heard that it comes from someone famous, and isn't just "a popular saying." (I think I learned this from Jeopardy about a year ago, and they're usually good with that sort of thing, altough not infalliable). I think the way it is now in the article is misleading, as it makes it seem like it was a common saying when it is in fact the quip of one individual. [[User:129.105.104.223|129.105.104.223]] 01:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 
I was told in history class that Napoleon said it. [[User:Merick|Merick]] 17:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
I feel like this is an actual Voltaire quote, but I'm not certain of that, and I can't point to any references. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 03:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 
Original poster here, sorry I was thinking about another quote that was misattributed: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" which was from the friends of Voltaire.--[[User:Countakeshi|Countakeshi]] 01:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Rank ==
 
I have a question:
 
If a French baron was granted the title of Prince of HRE, does this mean that he
anwsers to nobody except HRE Emperor ? Since the title of Prince of HRE is directly subject to HRE emperor.
 
Siyac 07:37, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 
:: He would answer to both; the dukes of Pfalz-Zweibrücken and Croÿ did.
 
== Errorneous link ==
The link from here to the Battle of Verdun (Ist World War) is errorneous. Please correct (and then remove what I have just written here). The text is as follows:
 
"The Western Empire, as divided at Verdun, 843. From the 'Atlas to Freeman's Historical Geography', edited by J.B. Bury, Longmans Green and Co. Third Edition 1903." - the text under the picture. I am absolutely sure that you dind't want to link in the Ist World War here.
 
--[[User:Msoos|Msoos]] 5 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
 
== Title conferral ==
 
Can a nobleman(Prince, Grand Duke, Duke, Marquess, Count, Viscount, Baron), besides HRE Emperor confer any noble title on a commoner ?
 
--[[Siyac]] 5 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
 
I don't think princes of the Holy Roman Empire were allowed to confer titles like that. After the break-up of the Empire, though, the German princes certainly did. I know that "Prince of Battenberg" was a title created by the Grand Duke of Hesse. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 5 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
 
Yeah they could. The Duke of Eisenach conferred noble titles onto Frederick Schiller, making him -von Schiller. It's in the [[Friedrich Schiller]] article.
-Alex, [[User:12.220.157.93|12.220.157.93]] 20:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC).
 
== "SPAM" ==
 
I don't know what this trolly Ybbor person is trying to say (other than insult me), but I still think it makes sense to put the alleged Voltaire quote where I put it. [[User:131.130.1.143|131.130.1.143]] 14:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 
 
==The Longest Lasting Empire?==
 
Was the H.R.E. the longest lasting empire or was it Byzantium? If the H.R.E. was the longest lasting empire that should be added to the article.
:the question is, was the HRE an empire, by any means but its name? (cf. the Voltaire quote) [[User:MartinBiely|MartinBiely]]
:There is no ''start'' to the ''"Byzantine"'' empire. It is just a continuum of the [[Roman Empire]]. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
:Of course, the HRE counts as an Empire. Voltaire's quote shows only that he couldn't look beyond the conditions of his time (The Byzantine Empire was hardly an Empire in its latter years).
:The HRE ended in 1806 - the question is when it began: either 800 or 962. I'd prefer the latter year to avoid the gap. This would make 1006 or 844.
:The Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 - the beginning is more difficult (753 BC or 31 BC or 285 AD or 326 AD or 395 AD or 613 AD) but - apart from the last date - it beats the HRE. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 
Byzantine Empire really starts in Justinian's reign, anyway. The style of rule kinda changes to something much more stronger and autocratic than the traditional roman way. To me, Byzantium began in 571, ending in 1453. The HRE truly began with Charelmagne, as he is counted as "Charles I" in the numbering of Emperors (if we went with the HRE beginning in merely 962, then Charles V would really be Charles IV). So, if not "the longest", then the HRE should be mentioned as "one of the longest".
-Alex, [[User:12.220.157.93|12.220.157.93]] 20:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC).
 
== Coat of arms ==
 
Someone's added a coat of arms to the article. However, I believe that they are in fact either personal to the emperor (and thus belong at [[Holy Roman Emperor]]), or more likely are just for the Habsburg monarchy. Can anyone either confirm or contradict this? [[User:Silverhelm|Silverhelm]] 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC).
 
Silverhelm is right. These coats of arms is one of the Emperor (if the year given 1605 is correct it is Rudolf II) including lands not belonging to the HRE (Hungary, Croatia). The crown is the "Rudolfinian house crown" (created by Rudolf II), It was used by the Emperor at state occasions (the Imperial crown was only avaiable for the coronation) and in 1804 was declared the Austrian Imperial crown. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 14:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Ottoman Empire ==
 
Why does the article as-is make no mention of the Ottoman Empire, who was probably the biggest military/economic opponent of the HRE in the 16th and early 17 c., when both were at their largest and most powerful points. Just a suggestion for possible improvement.
 
:The Habsburg Empire is not the Holy Roman Empire. The latter was most certainly ''not'' at its most powerful point in the 16th and 17th centuries. Some mention of the Turkish threat in the 16th century would likely be appropriate, though. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 
fair points
 
== News: [[Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board|German Wiki Notice Board]] ==
 
Since it is much needed, I created the [[Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians%27_notice_board]]. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Why was the Dutch line removed? ==
 
Might I ask why the Dutch translation of "The Holy Roman Empire" removed?
 
Dutch* was just as much a language of the Holy Roman Empire as high german and low Saxon (the latter is not included btw.)
 
* ''Dutch has been traced back to the begin of 5th century.''
 
We also must not forget that the "German" part in '''the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation''' does not refer to Germany or specifically the Germans.During the age of the Holy Roman Empire till far in the 18th century "German" did not exist.In fact the English variant of "German" in German was '''Dutch''' (compare ''Deutsch'') and it refered to every native speaker of a continental west germanic language.In other words anyone living within the present day countries of The Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland or northern Belgium.
 
I would especially like to receive a responds from [[User:Kaihsu]] who reverted my edit.
 
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 23:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 
:The same material is repeated [[Holy_Roman_Empire#Names_and_designations_of_the_empire|later in the same article]] along with several other counterparts. It is good style to try to avoid overloading the first paragraph. Further, I can nearly be certain that "Heilige Roomse Rijk der Duitse Volkeren" is not how they spoke "Dutch" in the 5th century. For that matter, neither is "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation". &ndash; [[User:Kaihsu|Kaihsu]] 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:: That is true Kaihsu about the Dutch and German in the 5th century but the Holy Roman Empire lasted well into the modern era (early 19th century in fact) and for the last few centuries of its existence modern German was the dominant language of the "empire".
 
So then why is german mentioned in the beginning of the article?!
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 
German is and should be mentioned in beginning of the article because modern High German was the dominant language in the empire for part of its history (late middle age, modern era until 1806). Before this period Latin and Middle German, a predeccessor of modern Dutch and German, were the primary languages. Modern Dutch was never a language of the Holy Roman Empire as the Dutch left the HRE before modern Dutch was standardized. The empire was, especially towards it end overwhelmingly German speaking and that language dominated the politics and culture of the HRE for centuries.
That Sander is why German along with Latin is mentioned at the start of the article. Dutch on the other does belong in the list of successor languages.
--[[User:62.245.143.34|62.245.143.34]] 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Pay attencion now [[User:62.245.143.34]] because I'm going to tell you the truth now so mark my letters.
 
1) Middle German, whatever the hell that is, is '''NOT''' the ancestor of the Dutch language, from what I understand you're one of those people that think that Dutch is some German dialect.'''WRONG'''.Dutch is a separate language and at the moment dated older than the German language.
 
2) The culture of the low countries '''CANNOT''' be compared to the culture of the rest of the Holy Roman Empire, the Netherlands officially seceded from the HRE in 1648 but had been a totally independ state for 80 years before that.
 
3) The Dutch language was standadized in 1635 (The process started in 1477) ! 9 Years before the Dutch officially left.The socalled Middle German language of the Holy roman empire is '''A JOKE'''! Untill the Middle Ages '''LOW GERMAN''' languages, like modern Platt, were the most dominant because of the hanseatic league.Not any high german dialect.And apart from that... if MIDDLE GERMAN (whatever that is) was the language of the HRE ... then why should MODERN GERMAN BE MENTIONED?! Isn't that a successor language?!Modern Dutch started in the 16th century ... can one say the same about modern German?!
 
So the next time you try to lecture me ... think again.
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 
 
::Thanks for being so rude. Always a good way to make a point.
 
::1. If you don't know what [[Middle German]] is then enter it in Wikipedia.. there's an entry on it. I never called myself an expert on linguistics, nor was it my intention to lecture you but the point seemed pretty simple to me. Dutch was never a dominant language of the HRE, regardless of which dialects it developed from. Modern German on the other hand was.
 
::2. I didn't mention the culture of the Low Countries, you just did that yourself.
 
::3. As I just said, the point was pretty simple Sander... modern High German was the dominant language of the Holy Roman Empire for several centuries up until it ended in 1806. The dialects of the Netherlands - whatever you want to call them were never in a similar position as far as I can tell since Latin probably occupied that role for much of the empire's history. And in case you still are incapable of comprehending, I will say it simply. German should be listed because unlike Dutch it was one not only a successor language to the Germanic dialect of most common people in the HRE... remember the HRE EXISTED UNTIL 1806, at which time modern German had been its dominant language for centuries. What is so hard to understand about that - it isn't as if the HRE only existed in the middle ages in case you forgot.
 
::I have no idea of what you problem is but it isn't mine - and by the way I never called Dutch a dialect of German, so take your bitterness/anger somewhere else please. I see no problem with having the German and Latin names of the HRE mentioned, especially considering that the latin or/and German names were in the first paragraph for most of the article's history without much controversy - that is why I just added them again. If you have such a problem with the Latin and German names being included '''start a poll''' and find out what others say about it before you delete them at your own will, because I for one do not agree. Deleting the Latin and German names just because Dutch was removed from one list seems pretty petty and POV to me.
::--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 
The Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1806, by which time the German name was identical to the modern German name. The HRE was a largely German state. Note that the name of the Empire in other languages represented within the Empire - French (in the southern Netherlands, Franche Comté, and Savoy), Italian (in the Trentino, Trieste, and, arguably, in most of northern Italy), Sorbian (in Lusatia), Czech (in Bohemia and Moravia), Polish (in Silesia), Slovene (in Carniola), are also not listed. It wouldn't make any sense to list Dutch (which was, after 1648, only represented in parts of the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands) without listing all of these other languages, as well. And that would be silly. German and Latin seems fully sufficient to me. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 03:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
 
All of you editors need to understand that the Holy Roman Empire EVOLVED.High Germanic dialects only became dominant during the second half of the HRE's existance, before that Low Germanic language were dominant. (BTW When did Latin ever dominant with over 50 % of the pop??)
 
This article seems to imply that the HRE was a German state, which it so wasn't. Latin and German are mentioned in the article itself and have no more right than any other language to be mentioned in the intro.
 
Removing the netherlands infobox because of irrelevance is a disgrace! I'd like to have a little discussion with the person who thinks it's the right thing to do.And with that, denies that the HRE wasn't part of the history of the Netherlands.
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
::I reverted your edit again. Like I said you should start a poll if you take such issue with the names, which as I said were quite uncontroversial for most of the article's history. I do not think your arguments justify you simply deleting them and that being the end of it. Sander your agruments are extremely confusing to be honest.
I will say it simply again so you can comprehend.
::1. The High German name is included at the start because it (modern High German) was the dominant language of the HRE for a more than a century until its demise in 1806. Its the only "living" language that held this position. Dutch did not, so why can you not accept that finally. Also most of the regions that at some point comprised the HRE are now part of German-speaking nations, as if the first argument was not enough anyway. Anyway German has been listed (for years now) for obvious reasons and your arguments just do not convince me otherwise. Your arguments about low and high Germanic dialects are irrelevants because it would not make any sense to list every archaic dialect spoken in the HRE here. High German on the other hand unlike the Germanic dialects you listed was simply in dominant position in the HRE in its last centuries. By the 19th century the HRE was basically a German-speaking confederation for all intents and purposes
::2. Latin was a lingua franca among the European educated classes for many of the centuries that the HRE existed, including among the nobility of the HRE. I am no expert on the use of latin in the middle ages but I will assume that would be a very good reason for its inclusion.
 
::Either way your arguments are not convincing for me and really seem to be more about your own personal Dutch chauvinism than about improving the article. Listing the German name does not imply the HRE was a German state any more than than listing the Latin one implies it was a Roman state. I reverted the article and would ask that you start a poll here since not many others here seem to have expressed supporting your argument or having a problem with the German and Latin names.
::--[[User:62.245.143.34|62.245.143.34]] 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
You don't get it do you? It's not about me convincing you, it's about the truth of this article.
Modern German started in 1650.The Dutch language was standardized in 1635. It doesn't matter if German (Which wasn't the same as now) was most spoken within this terribly obscure 'empire' ... it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro.It will, like latin, be mentioned in the tab below the article.Because of this, I will revert again.[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
And you don't get that Wikipedia is about consesus and not your opinion. Just start a poll if you want the change. Until you get better arguments of more people supporting this unneccesary change to the article I will have to disagree. Reverted again (this is my second for today and I would rather not have a third, so please just start the poll to get your change through on this issue). Like I said without better arguments I will not change my position that the article was quite okay and accurate with the two names in place. --[[User:62.245.143.34|62.245.143.34]] 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Wikipedia is about the truth and honesty.It doesn't matter if 51% of the people here think the holocaust didn't happen it would still be listed.
I will revert again on the ground of my arguments. And if you, --[[User:62.245.143.34|62.245.143.34]] can't find them.Read better.
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 16:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
::: So Sander please tell me what is so hard about starting a poll and as I told you Wikipedia is also about consensus and not about your opinion. Also please explain what is untrue about the point I and John K made about German being the main language of the HRE in the centuries after the middle ages. What is not true about that????? And your holocaust denier comparison is just plain stupid and embarrassing.
--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Try to read.
 
Any other language has the same right to be mentioned in the first line.Why should contempory high German and classical latin have more right?
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Any other language hmmm how about Swahili or Japanese or Welsh. Sander it has already been said to you but here it goes again.
Not many people have had a problem with this except for you so maybe you should ask yourself why? The reason why German is and should remain in the first paragraph is that the HRE for at least one century before 1806 was a largely (modern) German speaking union, and as I said most of the former territories that comprised the HRE are now in the German-speaking countries. And Latin was the language of the educated and politically important for much of the HRE's history. To pretend German did not occupy a more important role in the HRE than any other modern language is just stupid and silly revisionism and I see no reason for it.
--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 14:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
: <sigh> The languages, spoken within the Holy Roman Empire and/or their modern counterparts, are mentioned further on in the article.
'''It doesn't mean anything''' that the a form of high German (Early New High German) was spoken most within a political association, because in the final centuries it was hard to call the "Empire" an empire, '''it does not make it more special''' than all the other languages.Same thing for latin.
German and Latin, like all the other languages are mentioned further on in the article, '''just like any other language'''. If you think it's so important to add that in the final hundred or what years early new high german was the most spoken language of the holy roman empire then just add it behind the German translation.
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
::Thats just plain nonsense. Like I said the names were here for a long time with little to no controversy. You are simply lying or you are ignorant to suggest that modern German did not play a dominant in fact dominating role in the HRE in the time before it was ended. The only reason I see for your revisionism is your problem with German or your bitterness about Dutch not being included. In my opinion you have not given a convincing subjective argument. The USA also does not have a defacto official language and at least a tenth of all Americans speak a different native language besides English but in the non-English Wikipedias the English name is obviously included (and no, I'm not comparing HRE to the US directly). Its just a fact the HRE consisted largely of areas that are now in German-speaking countries/regions. It also a fact that modern German was the dejure official language of the HRE in the period before it was dissolved in 1806. And that does not make it "special" but it is true and it does give it a greater status in discussing the HRE than language like Dutch or French which were also spoken in parts of the Empire at some point. This is just about silly revisionism that has nothing to with improving the article.--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 15:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Do you seriously expect me to discuss this matter with you when you dismiss good arguments as redivisionism and/or childisms?
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
:: I have discussed and disccused and laid out my arguments and quite frankly it does not seem to matter to you. So I will just wait for more opinions and pay attention to the changes you "try´" to make here. And I called your actions childish such as posting previous and totally unrelated edits of an editor here and yes your actions do seem to me to have more to do with not accepting that Dutch did not as important a role in the HRE as German did.. And yes I find it revisionist to insist on pretending German had a similar in the HRE (post-middle ages) as the other language listed did when its clear the role of German was far greater.
--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
== Previous edits by User: 62.245.143.34 ==
 
An impression of User:62.245.143.34's views I suppose you had a '''poll''' and '''valid arguments''' for these edits?
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_4th_Panzer_Division&diff=46728702&oldid=46571223
'''(Attempted) denial of Nazi/German war crimes.'''
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Reinefarth&diff=46926516&oldid=39859319
'''Denial of Nazi/German war crimes.'''
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selbstschutz&diff=46167242&oldid=43980020
'''(Attempted) denial of Nazi/German war crimes.'''
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_Kr%C3%BCger&diff=46160469&oldid=46016797
'''Denial of Nazi/German war crimes.'''
 
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
 
::I am seriously on the verge of requesting mediation here, because you are behaving incredibly immature. Posting somebody's previous comments (out of context) does not make your arguments anymore legitimate and probably won't get you much support. How dare you try to make me look like a nationalist and a German nationalist at that (I am not even German). The edits you (selectively) listed had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi denial - notice how you didn't find a single pro-Nazi or national socialist edit did you. Most of the so-called edits you mentioned were simply citations for sources - so you either missed that or you are were manipulating my history on purpose. All of those edits were done in reaction to one Wiki editor's POV language in articles concerning Germany. I won't name the editor or his nationality (but its obvious who I mean) because this does not belong here but if you had done a little more researching you would have seen the connection to that one editor. Like I said there was not a single edit there that is pro-Nazi or even pro-German really so get a grip. You are behaving childishly and immature and your arguments are not more legitimate because of it... that is why your contributions have been reverted in the last 2 days not just by me but also by two other editors. And yes I reverted the article again and put the latin and German names that as I do not seem to bother many other people. Try to get some real arguments to support your contributions and maybe you will convince the other people who reverted your edits here.
::Here is one of the FIVE PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA - you might want to think about it a bit.''Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations.''--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Please do call a mediation, it's not like I'm afraid of your threats.
Take note of how I insinuated that 62.245.143.34 was a German nationalist, not you.
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 12:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
::: Sander what exactly is your issue! I suggest yet again that we start a poll to try and find out where others might stand on this issue. I am trying to deal with this disagreement rationally and it would be nice if you could try to keep things civil and perhaps try to find a solution. Like I said I am all for a poll on the issue. Try to remember the word consensus before you next reply.
--[[User:62.245.143.34|62.245.143.34]] 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
I'm sorry [[User:62.245.143.34|62.245.143.34]] I refrain from further discussion with you because of moral reasons.I hope you'll understand.
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
::I am sorry Sander but you are truly one of the least informed editors I have come across here. Go read the Wikipedia guidelines and especially those on etiquette and consensus. I filed a request for informal mediation in the hopes that it might actually get things going here. If you choose not to discuss an issue its your problem but it would be best if also refrain from editing if you want to remain "silent". Either way not discussing is not the way to build consensus.
--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Insulting and accusing me of not discussing the matter isn't going to help you MagicMonkey, anyone who can read will see who is and who isn't discussing here.
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 14:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
::''I refrain from further discussion with you because of moral reasons.I hope you'll understand.'' Your words, not mine Sander. And its strange how you use Wiki guidelines in your last revert (edit summary) but manage to ignore some of the most important one on conduct here when you throw personal attacks including labeling somebody a nationalist/nazi.
--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Where did I call anyone a nazi [[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] ?
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Oh please Sander, I hate to use this language but please don't play dumb. If you call somebody's action nationalist (especially in a context about Germany), accuse them of Nazi crime "denials", and then say you will not discuss an issue with them for "moral reasons" then you know very well what you are getting at. And speaking of rules it was nice of you to violate the 3-revert rule. I will respect the rules and refrain from such action.--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
On the contruary, you broke that rule as well.I will repeat that I never called anyone a nazi.
:[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And I repeat you are playing dumb. You know very well what you did (just look above at the start of this section) and it was out of line, rude, and non-productive for the discussion.
--[[User:MagicMonkey|MagicMonkey]] 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
I'm not playing dumb dear MagicMonkey, it's just that you claim that I called someone a nazi while I'm pretty sure I never did such a thing.
As for the "out of line, rude, and non-productive"-ness of this particular section... I believe it's a good thing to know what kind of person I'm talking with in a discussion.His or her clear ''German(y) über alles'' in this discussion made me curious about what else the user had edited on wikipedia.To be honest I was quite shocked really.I think edits like these should be (but already were) public information.I believe it gives some additional flavour to the motives of [[User:62.245.143.34|62.245.143.34]]
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 
== Countries' timeline boxes ==
 
Is it possible to resize all of them to an equal level?
I can't help looking at the page, as it is now, it seems a bit messy.
The Austrian box is that tiny, then we see this huge box of the Netherlands and then at the bottom a normal-sized German box. [[User:Sirupe|Sirupe]] 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 
 
--
== Does there have to be a Dutch History box? ==
 
If there is a Dutch infobox, there would have to be a French, a Czech, a Italian, a Swiss and maybe a Polish infobox, too. [[User:84.187.110.107|84.187.110.107]] 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 
Indeed they should be included as well.Thing is that none of those history infoboxes mention the Holy Roman Empire.
 
[[User:Sandertje|Sander]] 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 
==Liechtenstein==
 
Quote:
Liechtenstein is thus the last independent state in Europe which can
claim an element of continuity from the Holy Roman Empire.
 
Is this true? Why don't Luxembourg and Austria count? [[User:Chl|Chl]] 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 
I believe Luxemburg was ruled by the Dutch for quite some while.
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex Germanus]] <small>''Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona'' </small> 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 
 
well the dutch were part of the empire till 1648 (Peace of Muenster), the same with switzerland.
 
The Dutch were officially part of the HRE till 1648, but they were completely independent from 1579 on.From that time on the HRE had no power over them. Apart from that what does your remark of the Netherlands being part of the HRE have to do with Luxembourg?
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 19:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 
==How to insert this picture from commons?==
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HRR_10Jh.jpg
 
I tried and failed [[User:Foreigner|Foreigner]] 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 
just like any en-picture: <nowiki>[[Image:HRR_10Jh.jpg]]</nowiki> [[User:Agathoclea|Agathoclea]] 18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:The image is a bit anachronistic though... it uses a modern map. Especially [[the Netherlands]] have changed considerably: [[Flevoland]] was created in the 20th century, just like the [[Delta Works]]. Both can be seen on the map, unlike, strangely, some of the [[Wadden]] islands. [[User:Junes|Junes]] 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Junes is right, so I took the map and changed it, I got the information from an early Dutch republic map, at this time reclaiming land wasn't that big a deal yet ... It's a bit more realistic now.
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex Germanus]] <small>''Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona'' </small> 10:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:HRE 11Jh.PNG|thumb]]
 
==Attention: WikieWikieWikie==
 
I will go through your edits, paragraph by paragraph, here, since I think there are quite a few problems with what you've proposed. I'll do this gradually, rather than right away. I do encourage you to make changes - but maybe stick to individual paragraphs, so we can discuss them as we go through. I do apologise, as this is bad Wikipedia etiquette, but I do believe your edits have introduced problems in the article. [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 
Is it bad Wikipedia etiquet? Pray tell the good etiquette!
 
I keep getting my additions reverted. It is ironic. I try hard, yet seem to be break the mould so much and reset it people just revert my changes, which I put alot of effort into. I see no need for an apology though. It is obviously a hard lesson I am forced to learn. Little by little is really better for everyone, although some articles just seem careless, which mean I can't help edit entire sections.
::There is a wealth of information available about Wikipedia policies around - [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]] for example. I strongly encourage you to read this and other important policies if you want more information. I think in some cases it may be hard for some users to understand the reasons behind your changes - talk pages are a good way of explaining potential edits. I'm sure everyone appreciates that you mean well and that you do try hard. Maybe when you've been around the place for a longer period things will start to become easier for you. [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 11:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 
 
===Intro paragraph===
 
:''The '''Holy Roman Empire''' was a mainly [[Central European]] conglomeration of [[countries]] in the [[Middle Ages]], also known as '''The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation''', in the [[16th century]], and the [[early modern period]]. It was at one point [[East Francia]], the eastern divide of the [[Frankish Empire]], with its partition in the [[Treaty of Verdun]], in [[843]]. It, offspring of [[Charlemagne]], was Rome's successor for nearly a millennium as the [[Kingdom of Germany]], until its dissolution, in [[1806]], at the command of [[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]]. By the [[18th century]], it consisted of most of [[Germany]], [[Austria]], [[Liechtenstein]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Czech Republic]], [[Slovenia]], [[Belgium]], large parts of [[Poland]], [[France]] and [[Italy]], as well as small parts of the [[Netherlands]], and [[Croatia]]. It was at it's peak consisting of all of the Netherlands, as well as [[Switzerland]]. In the [[18th century]], with the Empire already in decline, [[Voltaire]] famously commented disparaginly on its nomenclature, and the vanity of it's imperiousness, as he stated, the Holy Roman Empire was ''neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an [[Empire]]''.''
 
::I think ''lands'' is somewhat better than ''countries'' since "countries" creates ambiguities for modern readers and ''lands'' is closer to German ''Land''.
 
::"It was at one point [[East Francia]]": It wouldn't have been true at any stage that the Holy Roman Empire ''was'' Eastern Francia. The HRE was the East Frankish [[successor state]].
 
::"Offsping of Charlemagne" is perhaps a little poetic, and in any case inaccurate, since Charlemagne's initiative decades earlier didn't have a direct impact on the formation of the ''Reich'' as a territorial entity.
 
::"At the command of" - It's hard to succinctly encapsulate the process of the Empire's official dissolution. Napoleon formed the German Confederation as a ''rival and replacement'' for the Habsburg-dominated Empire, but did he actually ''order'' its dissolution? What's the best phrasing here, anyone?
 
::Is [[Alsace-Lorraine]] a large part of [[France]]? The point is debatable. I would argue the earlier version is a better way of describing the territories of the ''Reich''. Similar things can be said about "it was at it's peak consisting of" - which could be phrased somewhat better. You also removed "still", which is a good illustrative word showing that the Imperial realm varied over time, and was in decline by the [[18th century]].
 
::"And the vanity of it's imperiousness" - please note that ''it's'' is not a possessive in Standard written English. This goes into expressing an opinion rather than simply commenting on what Voltaire was trying to say. Wasn't the earlier phrasing better?
 
[[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 
:Your points are well put. I always get annoyed with 'it's' being the wrong way for 'it' to possess, although I realise its plural, 'its', is non existant, but, 'its', is, 'it is', its confusions confound me. I will try to consider your comments, although I kind of had my heart set on it before, maybe I can find a better way for it to be still.
 
[[User:WikieWikieWikie|WikieWikieWikie]] 09:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 
===Character of the Empire===
 
:I thought a large part of France meant eastern France, rather than Alsace and Lorraine, as it says in the Character of the Empire. I see now it was only early on eartern France was part of the Empire, although it looks like this early stage, it's peak, means a restructure of the lead up to the 18th century stage description might be a good idea.
 
::Franche Comté was part of the Empire until 1678, as was most of what is now Nord department. Artois was in the Empire until 1659. Montbéliard and some other places in Alsace remained imperial until the Revolution. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 
==German (and its many dialects and derivatives)==
 
Yiddish was certainly a language of the Empire, and it's certainly a derivative of German, so I believe this to be accurate. Of course all languages have variation, but in the case of German, the designator "German" can be applied to such a wide swath of the dialect continuum that I think it's worth noting "many" as emphasising the diffuse nature of the Empire's linguistic situation. [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed Yiddish was a language of the empire, so why "''hide''" it behind "''German derivative'''s'''''" AFAIK German only had '''one''' derivative in the Holy Roman Empire period; Yiddish.
:Also, don't you think "derivative" sounds somewhat degrading? Not that I say the writer implied anything with it of course, but that's just how I perceive it.
:[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::Hmm, on reflection, ''derivative'' is probably not the best expression we could use here. Maybe something like "the many [[lect|varieties]] of German?" [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 11:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By varieties you also mean to include German dialects? (As Yiddish is the only derived language of German spoken in Europe)
[[User:Rex Germanus|Rex]] 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 
 
==Roman Empire link in header==
The following header was removed twice from this article:
:''This page is about the Germanic empire. For the ancient empire centred on Rome, see [[Roman Empire]].''
Suppose we'd be better off discussing this in the Talk page than endlessly going back and forth on it in the edit history. Personally, I feel the link should be restored. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who reached this article from another related article would be curious about the distinction between the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire. While it may be true that "nobody types in "Holy Roman Empire" thinking of ancient Rome" (to quote [[User:Neutrality]]), it is certainly plausable that someone learning of the Holy Roman Empire for the first timem would be confused, and utilize the link. I'm reinserting it, and believe it should stay put. [[User:MrZaius|<font color="Blue">'''MrZaius'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:MrZaius|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 13:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed. A casual reader, unfamiliar with history, would likely assume that "Holy Roman Empire" was just another way of referring to the Empire of antiquity. [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 
I fail to understand this argument. A disambiguation link is not to explain the difference between terms, but to deal with disambiguating ambiguous titles. "Holy Roman Empire" is not a title which is ambiguous with "Roman Empire." The fact that it is different from the Roman Empire is clearly explained in the article text. Nobody searching for "Holy Roman Empire" is likely to be actually looking for the regular Roman Empire, and disambiguation is not for articles linked by other articles, as I understand it. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holy_Roman_Empire/Archive_3"