Talk:Patrician (post-Roman Europe)

Italian patricianship

This article is out of balance -- it needs a goodly paragraph on Italian patricianship, if that's the paradigm.DavidOaks 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

In my opinion there is no point to having two articles that are so closely related as Patricianship and Patricians compete with each other. Therefore I propose that the parts of Patricians worth adding to Patricianship be merged into the latter and Patricians be deleted.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from a mention in the lead, the other is all about Ancient Rome. I see no overlap. Any merge would certainly be the other way, leading the medieval and modern stuff at the end of a long article. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has had only a single criticism to date (since taken care of), whereas Patricians has had about a dozen. For example, one critic there wrote, "should a mention be made of german title, Patrizier, likely derived from Patrician, and common in the middle ages?"

Another critic (cough cough) wrote, "We appear to have no article at all on the post-antique patrician classes in Italy and elsewhere." 8-)

After redundant stuff (material already contained in the various articles on ancient Rome, the video game (?)) is thrown out from there, it can be merged into here, improving user friendliness.

Also, most other-language Wikipedias have only a single entry on patricians, which means that the Interwiki link in them can only point to one of the two English Wikipedia articles -- an awkward situation.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said "We appear to have no article at all on the post-antique patrician classes in Italy and elsewhere", then I found this & expanded it. I'm not at all sure what your point is. Patrician now has a hatnote, and link in the lead, for here. Apart from the German article & Dutch stub, most major European articles deal all-but-exclusively with ancient Rome. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see that my merger proposal is not getting much traction. How about this instead:

1. Target the redirect in patricians at the disambiguation page patrician. (Right now, Patrician is unfairly privileged over Patricianship in that it is the target for the automatic redirect.)
2. Remove "(disambiguation)" from the disambiguation page name, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
3. Patricianship should have a hatnote as a counterpart to the one on Patrician.
4. Rename Patrician and Patricianship. Presently the names of the two pages are not specific enough. How about renaming Patrician to "Patricians of Rome" and Patricianship to "Patricians in the Middle Ages and Modernity"?

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all those links go where you seem to think. I have to say that although I am myself more interested in later patricians, Roman patricians are pretty clearly the primary meaning in English, as the term was not used for modern figures in England until the 18th century I think, and then only figuratively, with Ancient Rome probably more in mind than Venice, let alone Hamburg. Renaming is possible, it would be Patrician (Ancient Rome) and I don't quite know what. I can't really see the benefits myself. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which link does not go where I said it does? When I wrote "… at the disambiguation page patrician," I meant the page currently named patrician (disambiguation). How about a page Patrician (Ancient Rome) and another Patrician (Middle Ages). Neither name would be perfect, as the first neglects the late Roman Empire and the second neglects the centuries since the Middle Ages. But it would be an improvement, I think. Thank you for humoring me so far.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Patrician (post-classical) might be better. As I say, I can't see much benefit. We still need the disam page, for the other meanings. You should raise this at the Roman page, which is probably watched by more people. Johnbod (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an alert to Talk:Ancient Rome. For the third time, I want to keep the disambiguation page. You are probably right about Roman patricians being the primary meaning in the English language.* However, that is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia, and the patricians of the 13th to 19th centuries in continental Europe are every bit as important, if not more so, as a historical force than the patricii of Rome.

* Actually, if you were to ask people about it, 78 percent would slam the door in your face so they can go back to watching Jerry Springer. 20 percent would draw you a picture of John Houseman in The Paper Chase, and one percent each would go for one of the two Wikipedia entries (smile).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See [[1]]. I think Patrician meets this standard (again, in English) though it might be difficult to demonstrate this. You can be sure the Ancient Roman crowd will think so too. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I linked to it above, remember? I am not going to presume how people will comment on the issue, I will wait and see.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral: I agree with the opening sentence that it is kind of odd to have two Patrician articles referring to each other but one of them named different - the modern Patricians are termed Patricians too, not Patricianshipers. I support either of the both proposals to change that: The current Patrician article is not that lenghty, it could be integrated into the "new" Patrician article (currently Patricianship) with a section "Roman Empire" containing the current Partrician article sections "Status", "Patricians vs. Plebeians", "Patrician position" and "List of P..." turned into subsections; the "Ethymology" and "P... in fiction" sections could be integrated here without changing their hierarchy level. On the other hand, it would also make sense to have/keep the articles separated as "P (Roman)" and "P (Middle and Modern Age)", with Patricians becoming a dab pg. - that I would support if an expansion of the Roman article is expected to happen in the (near) future, or even to encourage users to add content, which is imho more likely with small articles (vs huge ones). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral with questions: whether or not to combine the articles or keep them separate should depend on how closely related the subject matter is. If there is a scholarly consensus that Roman patricianship and medieval/modern patricianship are essentially the same social phenomenon or part of an evolutionary social process, then a single article makes sense. If the two are only superficially similar, or if the relationship is controversial, then separate articles make more sense. What does the scholarship say? Simmaren (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - it seems that the use of the term has changed, but is continuous from the early Roman Republic. Merge. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Firm Oppose to make my position clear. A rename to Patrician (something) might make more sense, but to what? "post-classical"? It is just about true that "the use of the term has changed, but is continuous from the early Roman Republic" but that is no reason at all to merge - imagine if we followed that route with Emperors, Senates etc? Most subjects are rightly treated in different articles for the classical & post-classical period, and there are no other articles on the subject as yet, needing an overview to pull them together. To Simmaren, about 4 or 5 essentially different types of patrician can be distinguished, with really very little continuity beyond the deliberate use of an antique term for "branding" purposes. AFAIK scholarship rightly treats them all separately; I am not aware of any that bothers to compare say patricians in the Roman and Venetian Rebublics. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Rename As the editor who originally proposed the Merge, I have since come around to thinking that a systematic renaming of related pages for clarification would be best. I agree with Johnbod above that the patricii of Ancient Rome may not have enough in common with the Patrizier of, say, 15th-century Nuremberg, other than both are urban elites whose hold on power derived from a combination of property and the patronage of the highest authority and who passed on their privileges from one generation to the next. However, there is no continuity, blood or otherwise, from the leading families of Rome to the first families of medieval and later Europe.

However, the current naming of the related pages is a mess and needs to be improved. Here's what I am proposing:

Old	New
patricians currently redirects to Patrician, the page on the patricii of Rome. This redirect unduly privileges Patrician over the page now named Patricianship, the page on the patricians of medieval and later Europe.	patricians redirects ( → ) to Patrician (now the disambiguation page, see directly below); other redirects: patrician → Patrician, Patricians → Patrician, patricii → Patricians (Roman), Patrizier → Patricians (Middle and Modern Age)#German-speaking countries.
patrician (disambiguation): needs to be renamed, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC	Patrician is the new disambiguation page.
Patricians, currently the Article on the patricii of Ancient Rome and Late Roman Empire	Patricians (Roman), per the suggestion made by Skäpperöd.
Patricianship, currently the Article on the patricians of medieval and later Europe	Patricians (Middle and Modern Age), per Skäpperöd.

And of course, a WP:HATNOTE at the top of Patricians (Roman) alerts readers to the existence of Patricians (Middle and Modern Age), and vice versa.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• That makes much more sense, although I am not sure of the gain. I think it is probable that the Roman article deserves to keep Patrician. Patricians (Middle and Modern Age) is very ungainly - more so to my ear than patricianship, and I'm sure if the capitalization is right. What we really mean is Patrician (not Roman), but of course we can't say so. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per my earlier statement 17:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Skäpperöd didn't sign.
• Support: the proposal makes sense given the answers to my questions about the scholarship. In lieu of Patricians (Middle and Modern Age) or Patrician (not Roman), I suggest Patricians (post-Classical) or Patricians (post-Classical antiquity). This message made by User:Simmaren.
• Qualified support - I still think the original merge proposal is better, with a useful degree of continuity of the reality (semi-hereditary elites) and the term. In the proposal, is Patrician simply a disambiguation page (support, we end up with two articles clearly demarcated, though as I said I'd really prefer one) or a separate article (oppose, we'd have three)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Roman and many later classes were wholly heredidary. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Without trying to start an unrelated argument, the articles already make clear how important the hereditary element of patricianship was at various times. Quite a few patricians achieved that status but weren't born in it. Back to the main point...Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Richard's question above, Patrician (disambiguation) will be moved to Patrician per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Firm oppose. This opposition is to the merger not to any possible renaming scheme. It is on practical grounds. The topic is actually a large one. To telescope all periods into one article will result in a very large article that will have to be broken again along some other lines. We have hardly started on the patricians of ancient Rome - the origin and basis of the class, its struggles with the plebeians, its role in republican politics, the clans that were in it. So, let's look to the future. We're the biggest Wiki around abd the facts that the others have not yet addressed the topic in any wider way is no argument. So eveything you editors are saying above is no doubt true and creative to some degree or a large degree but the topic will require different articles for different periods and there is not really much else of a straightforward solution. Why not name them "Patricians of ancient Rome", "Patricians of medieval Italy", etc?Dave (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• We seem to have some concensus on renaming. The next step would be to do a proposal at the current Patricians to rename to "Patricians of ancient Rome" (my preference, but whatever), then rename here - I think I prefer Patricians (post-Classical). Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I withdrew the Merge proposal some time ago in response to constructive criticism from User:Johnbod. I believe there is sufficient consensus now to perform the page moves/renames detailed in my table above, and I have made a move request on the Talk page of an admin to do so. (One change from the table: as proposed by user:Simmaren, the bottom right cell of the table should read Patricians (post-Classical) instead of Patricians (Middle and Modern Age).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose rename. This is logically three articles: patrician (early Rome to the Principate; the primary sense of the word); Patrician (late antique) (these are post-Classical); Patrician (medieval). If any two can be combined, it is the latter two; Charlemagne's title reflects the late antique office, and is in turn echoed by the medieval office. (Is there evidence on what Terry Pratchett meant? It could be any of the three, and if there is no way of deciding, it should be a fourth article - a perma-stub, but not the only one we have.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways of skinning this cat, but this is not one of them. Note the current patrician happily and surely correctly covers the late Empire. Why "medieval" - where do you draw the line in Venice and Zurich, and why? The suggestion that someone like Lucius Cassius Longinus (husband of Drusilla) (born perhaps 10 AD) has less in common with his own grandfather than with Doge Andrea Vendramin (d. 1478) needs, ahem, further support. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I never proposed drawing the line at Augustus (what did I say that suggests that?); the rational line is between the long-existing status and the late antique office, and should be drawn at Constantine (or possibly Diocletian). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, I misunderstood your comment, though I am not sure why you are opposing, rather than suggesting different renames. I agree the primary sense of "Patrician" is Ancient Rome, though some might not, but since we are mostly agreed to split the whole Roman period at what will inevitably be a rather subjective point, I don't think it is sufficiently primary to retain the plain title. "Medieval" does not work well by itself, lumping together the warlords and satraps of the Early Medieval period with the bourgeois of the later, and cutting those off from their Renaissance and Early Modern descendents who continued to rule in some places up to the French Revolution. Really the breaks we want are around say Diocletian and around 1100, right in the middle of the Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  I would support this division (which differs from the rename proposed above rather widely), although we should make clearer how early the use of the word patrician existed in medieval Italy. Is it an early Renaissance revival? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all; it dates from around the establishment of the various republics or Imperial free cities - typically the 10th century. See the article. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What I see is Beginning in the 11th century, a privileged class which much later came to be called Patrizier; for Italy, there isn't even that much precision. The quotation, vague though it is, is an assertion that the word was much later than the tenth century, which is what I asked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a version of a passage re Germany, which was generally later. I don't have dates for any Italian republics to hand, but they were much earlier, I think in several cases taking straight over from one or two man offices of patrician as delegates of local rulers. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

• Could an admin please look at Talk:Patricianship and perform a multi-page move, in line with the table on the page but with one change, namely new page Patricians (post-Classical) instead of Patricians (Middle and Modern Age), in line with the suggestion made by user:Simmaren. We do not have total unanimity among the editors on that page but I think it is fair to say that there is consensus. In addition, the discussion has been stale for quite some time and it is unlikely that waiting longer will generate more opinions. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Current situation

• There seems to be some confusion: the pages Patrician and patrician are the same page: a Wikipedia page's name can not start with a lowercase letter. Currently there are:
  1. Patrician, mostly about Roman patricians, a bit about science fiction.
  2. Patricianship, about patricians in later Italy and in Germany.
  3. Patrician (disambiguation): disambiguates between these two and assorted irrelevantia.
  4. Patricians: this is a redirect to Patrician.
  5. Patrizier: this is a redirect to Patrician (disambiguation).

  I recommend:

  1. Rename Patricianship as Patrician (post-Roman)
  2. Split off Patrician#Use in fiction as Patrician (science fiction).

  and then perhaps, move Patrician to Patrician (Roman) and then Patrician (disambiguation) to Patrician.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Pratchett's Patrician should be alone and under Patrician (Discworld), or a redirect to Havelock Vetinari: Bel Riose should be mentioned with the late Roman institution - he combines Ricimer and Belisarius; the reference to Rand is an illiteracy (some fanboy has failed to recognise the sense patrician = "aristocrat", which goes back to Alexander Pope), and should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I have moved Patrician to Patrician (Roman Empire) (minus the science-fiction), Patrician (disambiguation) to Patrician and tidied it, Patricianship to Patrician (post-Roman Europe). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That is worse than we started with; the patriciate predates the Empire by some 500 years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, the "Empire" was not in the proposal(s) above, and its arrival marked the loss of most of their power; Patrician (Ancient Roman) would be better. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I have moved Patrician (Roman Empire) to Patrician (Ancient Roman). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we have a good solution now. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

O.K. (I've improved the redirect for Patrizier, otherwise it's looking good.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Burgher families There is confusion between the general classification of a "patrician" and the title of "Patrician of Venice" for example. Patricians of Venice are not burgher or bourgeois families- which would be essentially middle-class merchant families. The title Patrician of Venice is a title exclusive to nobility not one for the bourgeois. Venetian nobles did partake in mercantilism, but they are not the merchant middle class, they are nobility. The whole point of the burgher families in the introduction needs to be removed because it is innacuate, and beyond that, it is completely unreferrenced.Jurisdictoration (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Patrician (post-Roman Europe). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919150839/http://www.frankfurt.frblog.de/frankfurt-lexikon/die-macht-der-patrizier to http://www.frankfurt.frblog.de/frankfurt-lexikon/die-macht-der-patrizier
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919150839/http://www.frankfurt.frblog.de/frankfurt-lexikon/die-macht-der-patrizier to http://www.frankfurt.frblog.de/frankfurt-lexikon/die-macht-der-patrizier

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sleeping partner?

I was reading this article when I noticed something peculiar in the following passages under section entitled "Formation of the European patriciates", first paragraph:

"At Genoa the earliest records of trading partnerships are in documents of the early 11th century; there the typical sleeping partner is a member of the local petty nobility with some capital to invest, and in the expansion of trade leading roles were taken by men who already held profitable positions in the feudal order, who received revenues from rents or customs tolls or market dues."

At first, I was confused by the phrase "sleeping partner" and I thought it might have been a left-over from vandalism that was missed in some clean-up (it happened before, I've found some vandalism were missed in a clean-up and left over for several months or even years). But having looked through the page history to see if it was change of some words or was inserted, I did not find any indication that this was a remnant of vandalism from the past. I then thought it might have been a mistranslation but I then realized it could be that this phrase is also synonymous with 'silent partner' which I am familiar with. But I am not so sure if that is what whoever added this phrase meant. In any case, I don't know how common the phrase "sleeping partner" is relative to "silent partner" so perhaps linking it to a Wiktionary definition or even the article's section I linked above here might be advisable.

Anyway, thought you'd all like to be aware of this. Thanks and have a great day. Legion (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

My name clement 47 Rydall place Ls119Lb Leeds

Please I need an appointment to renew my daughter’s passport can you please help me 2A04:4A43:4CAF:D65C:C96C:2E8E:1F4B:60FE (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)