Talk:Conrad I of Germany

Untitled

Shouldn't the title be "Conrad I of Germany", in accordance of naming conventions? Seeing as he was "King of the Germans", and first of them named "Conrad"...simply saying "Conrad of Franconia" seems somewhat indignant of the man's achievements. -Alex 12.220.157.93 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Konrad actually was king of East Franconia; the terminology "king of the Germans" only appeared with his successor Henry I (the Fowler). Konrad was a Franconian, the last in a long row of Frankish kings that began with Charlemagne, while Henry was a Saxon; this seems to have been one of the reasons for this choice of a "new" designation.Cosal 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page to "Conrad I of Germany" and rewrote the opening. I hope it is evident in the article why I moved the article. Srnec 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As the preceding brief exchange makes clear, the designation 'of Germany' is completely inappropriate. The original edit of 15 April 2006 makes it clear that this title was not used contemporaneously. And the intro to the current article describes him as King of East Francia. The article needs to be moved back to its original title ('Conrad of Franconia'). Clivemacd (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Britannica uses "King of Germany". For the most part, both "Germany" and "East Francia" are rare in 10th century sources. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't fixed by adding the word 'Germany' in brackets after East Francia in the article's introduction. East Francia in the 9th and 10th centuries has extensive currency within the Wikipedia project, including its own extensively sourced multi-section article - Germany does not. Unless you can demonstrate meaningful currency for the term 'Germany' during this period, I will move the article back to its original title. Clivemacd (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The article has been at this title for over ten years. A unilateral move over talk page opposition would be highly inappropriate. The correct avenue is WP:RM. —Srnec (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't use Request Move when you changed the article title in opposition to the views of Cosal in 2006 (see above) Clivemacd (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, he made no objection after the move was done. You are welcome to invite him to the RM, since he is still around. Srnec (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing "highly inappropriate" in correcting a unilaterally implemented, unjustified move to a factually incorrect lemma, even if that move took place ten years go. Even Conrad's successor, the Saxon Henry the Fowler, was still called king of East Francia; see also East Francia#Terminology. --Cosal (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the section on "Terminology". This has basically nothing to do with contemporary usage: both "Germany" and "East Francia" are rare in 10th century sources. The kingdom, in essence, did not have a name. When a unilaterally implemented (read: bold) move has stood for 10 years (and I did have the support of the registered user 12.220.157.93) and a user expresses opposition to change, it is absolutely inappropriate to make a unilateral change. That would be controversial and it is what RM is for. I'm shocked an RM hasn't been opened yet. It takes two seconds. Srnec (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to debate with a poorly informed, yet opionated person. Take a look, for example, at the article Kingdom of Germany: you will there find, as most serious historians know, that the term "rex teutonicorum" (king of the Germans) first came into use in the late 11th century, and it was NOT king of Germany. Cheers, --Cosal (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How can they know what isn't true? Henry II called himself rex Teutonicorum in 1020 [1] and related terms had already been used by that time in Italian narrative works [2]. Srnec (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

He did not call himself that -- but a scribe in Brixen did and that was an utterly isolated instance until the late 11th century. --Cosal (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You are confused. Müller-Mertens says it is an isolated instance in the 11th century, not until the late 11th century. But how does that square with the famous usage of Gregory VII you already alluded to? Because the instance of 1020 is a diploma of Henry's: it is his act, done in his name, no matter what scribe drew it up. Henry IV did not accept the title the pope tried to force on him, because he knew what the pope was trying to do. Gregory was not an innovator, however. As I said: calling the king and kingdom "German" was already being done, as in the Venetian chronicle from about 1000. Srnec (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. But Conrad died in 918.Clivemacd (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So what do contemporary sources call him? Srnec (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said: poorly informed, but opinionated. --Cosal (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you will both expose me for the ignoramus I am in the coming RM. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)