Talk:List of rulers of Saxony

List of rulers of Saxony

The page says that from 1539-1541, Henry IV, Duke of Saxony was duke of Saxony. However, looking at the German pages, that seems to be de:Heinrich V. (Sachsen) as the ruler between George, Duke of Saxony and Maurice, Elector of Saxony. Which one is correct? Kusma (討論) 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Munster (?)

Coat of arms of Munster, Lower Saxony

I can not see any reason, why the Coat of arms of Munster, Lower Saxony are show in the article - nor do I understand what kind of connection there could be between Munster and a List of rulers of Saxony. This must be a mistake...--Zarbi1 (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

organization

this is messy and hard to read. Further more complicated that the area called Saxony kept on changing. This article has a bias towards anything called just "Saxony" This give the idea that Old Saxony and the Free State of Saxony is the same entity. Really this is more about the title "Duke of Saxony" Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

---

List of rulers of Saxony → List of Dukes of Saxony –

• This list people who held the title Duke of Saxony, and ruled vastly different realms. Therefore the consistency is the title Saxony, not the geographical place that was ruled. Of course many also differentiate between the stem duchy and the younger duchy, so it is not the same title, but the multiple titles with the same name ruling different political and geographical entities. User:Tinynanorobots 02:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It also lists kings. Srnec (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • yes it does, but all those kings are also Dukes of Saxony. My point is that the name Saxony describes various different regions and political entities. this article needs to make that more clear. I am leaning towards changing my mind about moving it, and just including the various successor states to the stem duchy of saxony, and clarifying it, while making a separate article for the dukes of Saxony. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oh no. Is it too late to oppose this. You can't include kings of Saxony in a list of dukes of Saxony that's like including Kings of UK in a list of British princes. Everyone on this list claimed to be a ruler of a place called Saxony (who really cares that they were seperate areas).--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the bad timing. If there's a consensus against the move, we can move it back, but I'd like to see a little more input before doing more moves. There's no harm if the page is badly titled for a few days while we work out where it really should be, and then we can move it just once more, when we've decided. Does that sound alright?

I see that WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and WikiProject Germany have got banners at the top of the page. I'll go ahead and leave notes for them; are there any other places we should notify about the discussion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I could live with "Dukes of Saxony" as there is a separate and rather small section on "Kings of Saxony". However "Rulers of Saxony" also works. As an alternative, could we split out the "Kings of Saxony" as a separate article and link the two? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I prefer "rulers" because "Duke of Saxony" was a title held by all male members of the family in the later centuries. DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The title can be use by all male dynast from the time of the House of Wettin. All the Ernestine dukes were titularly Dukes of Saxony (Saxe was only a abbreviation of Saxony). As for the different Saxony issue, note in the list can explain the change of states and the different Saxonys. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the move because of everyone's support of this. Also since the user who requested the move in the first place hasn't replied back. Also the list already makes it apparent in the intro that the rulers ruled different territories named Saxony and the lists has links in each sections for the territory that each ruler ruled. It might need better clarification and maybe a section discussing and listing the different Saxonys that existed.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretender section

I removed the pretender section since there is no need for such a section and it doesn't seem like it is a rule that all list of rulers/monarchs should have one. And the whole dynastic dispute would just be too messy to deal with later on.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved somewhere else, because it should be somewhere. Tinynanorobots (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Head of the House of Wettin, etc

This article shouldn’t place the kingdom as the ultimate head of the dynasty because it co-existed with the grand duchy and duchies, which were all genealogically senior to the royal line. The head of the house of Wettin is the titular grand duke of Saxony, not either of the royal pretenders, one of which is not a Wettin at all. 2607:FEA8:C260:D0:7444:7A34:ED0A:5C8D (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus for the move. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

---

List of rulers of Saxony → List of monarchs of Saxony – "Rulers" it too vague of a term, and should be replaced by something clearer (see background discussion / process about "Rulers"). In most cases, "monarch" is more accurate, and dukes, electors, and kings are all monarchs according to WP:COGNOMEN #5: European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes). This list was already in Category:Saxon monarchs. It already identified all "rulers" as "monarchs" with the Template:Infobox former monarchy from Hadugato in 531 to Frederick Augustus III of Saxony on 13 November 1918, which the opening sentence describes as the end of the German monarchies in 1918. This is repeated several times throughout the list with the statement Monarchy abolished in 1918. Therefore, I thought this name change would be pretty uncontroversial. But @Srnec thought I should put it through a formal WP:RM, so here it is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 11:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would say that "rulers" is broad, not vague. I think it better reflects the changing nature of the title and the office. Srnec (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 11:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are of a more varied in nature and definition. Indeed, there are long periods of Saxon history where rulers shared and jointly headed the same territories, without partitioning jurisdiction (avowedly non-monarchical by definition). Walrasiad (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Walrasiad are you suggesting this list should also be in Category:Diarchies, or something? Or perhaps that Category:Saxon monarchs is WP:NONDEFINING because not all of "rulers" of Saxony were "monarchs"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about categories. As long as the article title is accurate and clear. Walrasiad (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Walrasiad Well, it evidently isn't "clear". As numerous recent precedents have shown, "rulers" can – according to some users, but not others – also mean elected or appointed non-hereditary heads of state (such as presidents) or heads of government (such as prime ministers), but this list ends in 1918 with the statement: For heads of government of Saxony since 1918, see List of Ministers-President of Saxony. For heads of state, see List of presidents of Germany. If it were "clear" that "rulers" were NOT presidents and prime ministers, there would be no need for such a statement. On the other hand, no reader would (normally) think that a List of monarchs of Saxony would include Ministers-President of Saxony. This is my primary reason for renaming this list. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Doubt it. It is rather unusual to see the term "ruler" applied to elected leaders. At least in English, leaders are said to "serve" or perhaps "govern", but not "rule". "Ruler" has connotations of magisterial sovereignty, e.g. in republics, "the people rule", not the president.

Indeed, applying the term "ruler" to a non-sovereign leader is often an insinuation of despotic and often illegally-acquired power. It's not a neutral term. Saying "X served as Minister-President of Saxony" is the common and neutral phrase. Saying "X ruled as Minister-President of Saxony" is suggesting his power was excessive and illegitimate. Kinda like using "regime" instead of "government". Walrasiad (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that "ruler" should not be applied to elected or appointed leaders. But a lot of other people, including sometimes in RS, do not. I gave the example that even people who were (at least originally) democratically elected as president or prime minister are sometimes said to be "rulers" or "to rule": like Alexander Lukashenko, who proudly calls himself a "dictator"), and thus may be said to "rule with an iron fist" or something. Turns out that is actually how RS have been writing about him since at least 1997: ALEXANDER CHUMICHEV / REUTERS Lukashenko's gambit. The controversial Belarussian leader rules his country with an iron hand. Is his real goal the Russian presidency? Will he succeed? (...) Given that he had only been democratically elected as president in 1994, there doesn't seem to be a very high threshold before we can call someone a "ruler" who "rules".

It is in part due to my insistence that "rulers" is too vague and arbitrary as a term, especially when it can be loosely applied to prime ministers and presidents, that the following categories were deleted:

Category:Socialist rulers

Category:Communist rulers

Category:Fascist rulers

Category:Ba'athist rulers

Category:Ba'athist rulers of Iraq

Category:Ba'athist rulers of Syria

...to name just a few. None of these were monarchs. They were all prime ministers, presidents, or something of that sort. If I hadn't pointed it out, the term "rulers" would still have been accepted as legitimate descriptions for many categories of non-monarchs. Renaming this list is just another step in a longer process to clarify what we are really talking about, instead of allowing "rulers" to be a catch-all term for anything we like. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Elsewhere I have seen various users argue that even non-hereditary, non-dynastic, non-monarchical, appointed governors can be called "rulers", even though I think they cannot (List of rulers of Crete, List of rulers of Provence). On the other hand, I've been in a very long (and actually quite interesting, but also frustrating) discussion about a case wherein I thought it was pretty clear that a series of "rulers" were hereditary, dynastic, monarchical, not-necessarily-appointed local princes and therefore "monarchs", but the creator of the List of rulers of Toungoo still insisted they were all non-hereditary, non-dynastic, non-monarchical, appointed governors that could at most be called "rulers" but not "monarchs". I've got no clue how such a vague term that can be so broadly applied and thus become so hollow and meaningless helps us in clarifying for our readers what someone's position actually is/was. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there is Lists of rulers of Serbia, Lists of rulers of Italy, List of rulers of France, Lists of rulers of Germany etc., all of which mix monarchs, heads of state, presidents, heads of government, prime ministers, etc.. Italy and Germany even add certain government ministers, field marshals, the entire "Leadership of East Germany" (whatever that is, the entire article is unsourced), aaaaand all ministers-president of the Bundesländer and the mayors of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg to "rulers". If It is rather unusual to see the term "ruler" applied to elected leaders, it sure happens a lot everywhere. (Don't worry, I'll get to those other lists later). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't change anything. As your very examples show, ministers aren't called "rulers" unless they are despotic with illegally-acquired power. No danger of confusion here. None of the rulers of Saxony were monarchs until the very last stretch. Indeed, through most of this list, they were dukes subsidiary to the German monarch. These are varied titles for the rulers (dukes, electors, kings) on this list, just as in the other lists. Current title is generally accurate, whereas your proposal is precisely wrong. Walrasiad (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

ministers aren't called "rulers" unless they are despotic with illegally-acquired power.

Okay so the current

• Foreign minister
• Interior minister
• Finance minister
• Justice minister
• Defence minister
• Economics minister
• Agriculture minister
• Labour minister
• Transportation minister

of the Federal Republic of Germany are all despotic with illegally-acquired power? Not sure how one could draw that conclusion... Or: we just shouldn't call them "rulers". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Er... nobody calls ministers "rulers", and you definitely shouldn't call them "rulers". Was I not clear? Walrasiad (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Lists of rulers of Germany#Ministers does. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That list must have compiled by someone who doesn't know English. Or simply dumped them into a list of lists for having nowhere else to put them. No, they're not "rulers". Walrasiad (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

So it does change something? I'd like to point out that even if it were compiled by someone who doesn't know English, nobody else seems to have found it a problem between 2006 and now. Between 2015-07-01 and 2023-05-21 alone, it got 47,520 pageviews. Yet the Talk:Lists of rulers of Germany page is empty. Nobody complained that "Hey, some of these people really aren't "rulers", you know?" Same with Lists of rulers of Italy which got 63,393 pageviews and zero complaints about "rulers" from all those readers. Etc. If it was "clear" that ministers aren't "rulers", and "rather unusual" if someone called them that anyway "unless they are despotic with illegally-acquired power", why didn't anyone notice, complain about it, let alone change it in all those years? The term "rulers" seems more commonly accepted to have a broader (but way too vague) meaning than you are suggesting. Which is precisely my point. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know and frankly don't care. We're talking about this article, not another. Usage of "ruler" in English is relatively clear. If it still confuses you, I would suggest you look into a dictionary or try reading some more English books. Walrasiad (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this means you have no reason left to oppose the Requested move. You've indicated that you:

- don't care what category this article is in

- don't care what the word "ruler" means, as long as it means what you like it to mean

- don't care how other people, other users, other articles, other categories or reliable sources use it, except that they must be "wrong" or "don't know English" if they use or accept it differently than you do

- don't care about the fact that the Background about the Rulers CfM which I have provided from 4 February 2023 includes many unclear and contradictory dictionary definitions about what a "ruler" is, yet you claim I should read a dictionary (I already did, on 4 February 2023) where it will be "clear" (it isn't). The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

- don't care about many recent precedents which, as I and others have been arguing, have demonstrated that "ruler" is too vague a word to use in category names, which has led to deletions/renamings.

Ergo: your argument boils down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, it is just tiring to argue about points of basic English. I realize this is not your native language, but there is only so many ways I can patiently explain usage of common terms. Evidently, I am not getting through. Despite many years as a teacher, I feel I cannot help you further here. I would advise you to try to do some research on your own in English language sources and then come back. Preferably outside of Wikipedia. Dictionaries & books are good places to start, and are generally available online. Walrasiad (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That English is not my native language is completely irrelevant. It doesn't give you in particular a monopoly on defining English words, especially when countless other native speakers disagree with you. I did all my dictionary definition research already and posted it all at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_25#Category:Rulers (points A., B. and C.). That has been sufficient for other users than myself (mostly Marcocapelle and William Allen Simpson, later also Laurel Lodged) to start nominating lots of other categories for CfD, CfR or CfM (see Rulers update 2). Although we have still not reached a final agreement on what to do with the top-level Category:Rulers, we have already reached consensus about renaming/deleting/merging countless other categories with "rulers" in their names in the Category:Rulers tree. At this point you gotta do better than telling me I've got no idea what I'm talking about than this is not your native language, do some research on your own like Dictionaries & books. I already did. We already did. We've been at this process for over 5 months, while you are telling me in an afternoon that you don't care about all that, as long as this article keeps "rulers" in its title. You gotta do better. Just because you are a teacher doesn't mean you already know everything there is to know, are done learning for the rest of your life and only have to make others (like me/us) learn; there is no reason for us to accept such an argument from authority from you. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

All the more reason to do some research to make sure you understand these terms and their usage correctly.

I am not saying I know better as a teacher. I am lamenting that I have failed in communicating here. Teachers are usually quite good at explaining a point in a clear and understandable way. But evidently I have been rather poor here. That's why I advise you to look at other sources, as I don't know how to be clearer. Walrasiad (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok well let's add some more dictionary definitions to what I already got.

Merriam-Webster says that a ruler is one that rules. specifically : SOVEREIGN. Synonyms: autocrat, monarch, potentate, sovereign, sovran. M-W defines sovereign as one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty. Synonyms: autocrat, monarch, potentate, ruler.

Oxford Learner's Dictionary says that a ruler is a person who rules or governs

Cambridge Dictionary: the leader of a country. Example: The country was without a ruler after the queen died. Leaders of national & regional governments: chancellor chancellorship chief executive co-ruler collector FM generalissimo governor governorship gubernatorial premier premiership Pres. presidency state premier Taoiseach the power behind the throne idiom Tánaiste veep vice president etc.

MacMillan Dictionary: someone who controls a country. Examples: Haiti’s former military rulers. He had more power than any ruler of Spain until Franco.

Collins Dictionary: The ruler of a country is the person who rules the country. Example: ...the former military ruler of Lesotho. He was a weak-willed and indecisive ruler.

Dictionary.com: a person who rules or governs; sovereign.

Longman Dictionary: someone such as a king or queen who has official power over a country or area► see thesaurus at leader

Free Dictionary: One, such as a monarch or dictator, that rules or governs.

It's not "clear" at all whether a "ruler" has to be a monarch/king/queen/sovereign, can also be a "military ruler" or generalissimo (including Franco), an undefined "dictator", "autocrat", "potentate", or just any kind of "leader" of "rules or governs", like a governor, president, vice president, premier, prime minister, chancellor, First Minister, Taoiseach etc.

Am I missing any important English dictionary definitions? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As your see, definitions and usage are very clear, all confine it to monarchs or dictators. Not sure how you come to your bizarre conclusion that it refers generally to "any leader" or "like a governor, president, vice-president, chancellor, etc.". It is either stubborn obtuseness, or a simple failure of understanding English. Walrasiad (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So you conclude it is clear what "rulers" are, and I conclude that it is not clear, based on the same dictionary definitions. I'm not sure what else to say. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is baffling. Not sure how you can read something not there. In the gentlest way, I'd have to put your misreading down to unfamiliarity with the English language. But I suspect it has more to do with stubbornness. I would kindly advise you to stay away from any articles involving the term "rulers", so long as your comprehension of that term remains so poor and marred. Walrasiad (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well well, I and many others have been involved in nominating dozens of categories with "rulers" in the name since 4 February 2023, reaching consensus about 95% of the time that "rulers" should be changed to something else (if it weren't for WP:CANVASS, I could tag everyone who agrees with me to show I'm far from the only one). But you have decided all on your own that I don't know what I'm talking about. I suspect at least part of the "sturbbornness" is (also) on your side (like I said, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). I'm afraid further discussion between you and me about this specific topic is pointless (though I do hope we can work together on other topics in the future, should we run into each other again). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Support the article is a list of monarchs, not rulers in a broader sense. The name should reflect what the article is. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Clear oppose; despite the attempted argument above, "ruler" is not used in English for (non-dictatorial) ministers or presidents or others, it is a fairly exact, if idiomatic, word which describes a person who rules an area. Monarch is, while acceptable as a generic noun encompassing kings, dukes and other rulers, using it to describe non-royal rulers (i.e., not kings) is less than usual. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.