Talk:Wilhelm II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wrong description of the postcard

The satirical postcard is actually from France, and not of Italian origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.157.105.150 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

An Anti-Semitic Anti-Nazi

Is there any explanations or any sort of sense that can made out of the article frequently (..and then some!) mentioning an anti-semitic character yet being appalled at the Nazis' atrocities and...before he wasn't anti-semitic or not so much and now I guess he is (according to Wikipedia)?

The Kaiser definately made some anti-semitic remarks during his lifetime but then again many people at that time were anti-semitic. However, many of the Kaiser's friends were wealthy jewish captains of industry like Ballin(who killed himself the day the Kaiser abdicated) and the organizer of the German war economy during WW1 was a Jew named Rathenau. Read 'Men around the Kaiser'(1913) available for free download at archive.org. Another good source of information on the Kaiser's views on Hitler is an old magazine article at oldmagazinearticles.com Do a search under 'the Kaiser' and you will find many articles written at the time. On that website is an article from Ken magazine December 1938. It says among other things that when the kaiser was asked what he thought of Hitler, he said "There's a man alone, without family, without children, without God. Why should he be human? Oh without a doubt he is sincere: but this very excessive sincerity keeps him apart, out of touch, with men and realities..."76.94.18.217 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette76.94.18.217 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

TOO MANY CONTRADICTIONS!!!

Just look at the article. Most of the sentences go something like "He was this. However, he was also that" or "He did this. However, he also did [something which nullifies the previous sentence]."

There are too many howevers, neverthelesses, althoughs, and this gives a very...how shall i put it..."stunted" and awkward feel to the article.

Can someone please edit the article for style? And do eliminate the trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.25 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some parts of this articles that does not make sense at all. At one moment Wilhelm openly criticize the jews and ask for their destruction and in another, he is against such thing? ---Lecen (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

why is Doorn mentioned as being in Germany?

so far as i know, it has always been a part of the Netherlands.

Mistake corrected. Noel S McFerran 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kaiser: Labor Reformer

Miners' Strike and Labor Conference

The beginning of Kaiser William II's reign was quite fascinating. In May 1889 there was a widespread strike in the Ruhr. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck wanted to use the army to disband the strikers and force them to return to work. At first the Kaiser agreed with these measures, but then he recognized that the workers had valid grievances and decided that major labor reforms had to be implemented. The following passages and translations are from: 1. Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm der Zweite, Ernst Rowohlt Verlag, Berlin (1926). 2. Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York (1927) [translated by Ethel Colburn Mayne].

"Dem war es bald zum erstenmal möglich, nach seinen humanen Grundsätzen zu handeln: über 100000 Ruhrarbeiter traten im Mai 89 in den Lohnstreik. Jetzt kommt sein grosser Augenblick. Als Bismarck eben im Kabinett verschärfte Ausnahmegesetze vorschlägt, erscheint unangemeldet und plötzlich der Kaiser als Husar, in schneidigem Ton erklärt er: 'Unternehmer und Aktionäre müssen nachgeben, die Arbeiter sind meine Untertaten, für die ich zu sorgen habe. Gestern habe ich den Oberpräsidenten am Rheine gewarnt: wenn die Industrie nicht sofort die Löhne erhöht, so ziehe ich meine Truppen zurück. Wenn dann die Villen der reichen Besitzer und Directoren in Brand gesteckt und ihre Gärten zertreten werden, so werden sie schon klein werden.'" [1, pp 85-86]

"He was soon to have his first opportunity of acting upon his humanitarian principles. Over a hundred thousand miners in the Ruhr came out on strike for higher wages. In the moment when Bismarck was laying before the Cabinet some strong emergency measures, there appeared, suddenly and unannounced, the Emperor in Hussar uniform and blustering mood proclaiming: 'The directors and shareholders must give in; the men are my subjects for whom I am responsible. Yesterday I warned the Chairman of the Committees in the Rhineland, telling them that if the industry doe not at once grant an increase in wages, I shall withdraw my troops. Then, if the owners and directors have their villas burnt down and their gardens trampled on, they will sing a little smarter!'" [2, pp 81-82]

In January 1890, the Kaiser decided to convene a Labor Conference.

" ... Zwei Vorlagen, von denen eine eigenhändig, werden von Bötticher verlesen. [...] Arbeiterschutz, Sonntagsruhe, keine Kinderarbeit: lauter verständige Dinge. Nach der Verlesung spricht der Kaiser: 'Die Arbeitgeber haben die Arbeiter ausgepresst wie Zitronen und sie dann auf dem Miste verfaulen lassen. so ist im Arbeiter der Gedanke entstanden, er ist nichtnur Maschine, er will am Gewinn beteiligt werden, den er erzeugt hat, Sein Verhältnis zum Arbeitgeber muss aber ein kollegiales werden. Die Streiks beweisen, dass zwischen beiden Parteien jede Fühlung fehlt, darum wächst die Sozialdemokratie. Das Körnchen Wahrheit, das in ihrer Lehre steckt, wird schwinden, die Anarchisten werden die Führung bekommen. Wie eine Kompanie verludert, um die sich der Hauptmann nicht kümmert, so auch in der Industrie. Beim nächsten Streik werden die Arbeiter noch organisierter und verhetzter sein, dann giebt es Aufstände, und wir müssen schiessen.

"'Es wäre aber furchtbar, wenn ich den Anfang meiner Regierung mit dem Blute meiner Untertaten färben müsste. Wer es redlich mit mir meint, muss alles aufbieten, um colches Unglück zu verhüten. Ich will der roi des gueux sein! Meine Untertaten müssen wissen, dass sich ihr König um ihr Wohl bekümmert! ... Der internationalen Sozialdemokratie muss man eine internationale Ubereinkunft entgegensetzen. Die Schweiz ist damit gescheitert. Beruft aber der Deutche Kaiser eine solche Konferenz, dann ist das eine andre Sache. ... Darum habe ich in zwei Nächten diese Entwürfe verfasst. Auf Grund derselben wünsche ich Vorlage eines in begeisterter Sprache gehaltenen Erlassen, um ihn übermorgen, zu meinem Geburtstage, zu veröffentlichen.'" [1, pp 94-95]

" ... Two proposals, of which one is written by the Emperor's own hand, are read aloud by Bötticher. [...] Protection of the working-man, no work on Sundays, no child labor: mere common sense. After the reading the Emperor speaks: 'The employers have sqeezed the men like lemons, and then let them rot in the dung-heaps. And so the working-man has come to reflect that he is not a mere machine, and claims his share in the profits created by him. But his relation to the employer must be that of a colleague. These strikes are proof that there is no sympathy whatever between the two parties; hence the increase in Social-Democracy. The modicum of truth that underlies that teaching will be forgotten, and the anarchists will gain the upper hand. Just as a regimental company goes to pieces if the captain takes no interest in it, so it is with industry, In the next strike the men will be better organized and more exacerbated; then there will be risings, which we shall be obliged to shoot down.

"'But it would be terrible if I had to stain the first years of my reign with the blood of my subjects. Everyone who means well by me will do his outmost to avert such a catastrophe. I intend to be le roi des gueux! My subjects shall know that their King is concerned for their welfare. ... We must oppose International Social-Democracy with an international compact. Switzerland did not succeed in that. But if the German Emperor convokes a similar conference it will be quite a different affair. ... And so I have spent two nights in framing these proposals. I propose to have drafts, based upon these, of an edict worded in a spirit of warm goodwill, so that I may promulgate it on the day after to-morrow, which will be my birthday.'" [2, pp 91-92]

In March 1890 the Labor Conference convened in Berlin, and the Kaiser gave the opening address. Many of his proposals were incorporated in the Workers Protection Acts of 1891 (Arbeiterschutzgesetze).

Although Bismarck had sponsored social security legislation, by 1889-90 he had become disillusioned with the attitude of workers. In particular, he was opposed to wage increases, improving working conditions, and regulating labor relations. Moreover the Kartell, the shifting political coalition that Bismarck had been able to forge since 1867, had lost a working majority in the Reichstag. Bismarck also attempted to sabotage the Labor Conference that the Kaiser was organizing.

It has been alleged that Bismarck was organizing a military coup that would disband the strikers, dissolve the Reichstag, repeal the universal suffrage law, introduce limited suffrage, reduce the Kaiser to a puppet, and establish a military dictatorship.

In the late 1970s PBS broadcast the BBC series "Fall of Eagles," which covered the period 1848-1918 and traced the downfall of the Romanov, Hapsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties. This series jolted me to overcome my superficial knowledge about this critical period of history.

"The Fall of Eagles," written by C. L. Sulzberger (Crown, 1977) accompanied this series and contains an interview with Louis Ferdinand, a grandson of the Kaiser. On page 391, Louis Ferdinand says:

"Had Bismarck stayed he would not have helped. He already wanted to abolish all the reforms that had been introduced. He was aspiring to establish a kind of shogunate and hoped to treat our family in the same way the Japanese shoguns treated the Japanese emperors isolated in Kyoto. My grandfather had no other choice but to dismiss him."

[User: Domenico Rosa, 6 April 2006] (65.171.25.94) 10:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The 13 episodes of "Fall of Eagles" are now available on DVD. A review is posted at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EMGF2Q/qid=1151257809/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/002-1387753-7900069?n=130

[User: Domenico Rosa, 28 June 2006] (207.210.130.124) 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey of Social Reforms

The following is a translation of the social reforms that occurred under Kaiser Wilhelm II, posted at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II._%28Deutsches_Reich%29#Soziale_Reformen

Survey of social reforms initiated during the reign of William the second.

• 1889: Law (Act) concerning invalidity and old age insurance of June 22 (for labourers)
• 1890: Repeal of the law concerning socialists (law forbidding political activity by social democrats in Germany)
• 1890: Founding of 31 insurance institutes, they were the precursors of the later Landesversicherungsanstalten. (they administered old age pensions and the like for working people.)
• 1891: Payment of first pensions to permanently disabled workers and workers over seventy years of age.
• 1891: Law for the protection of labourers of June 1, 23rd annex to Reich Industry Statute, with protection for female workers, limitation of work during the night, entitlement to rest on Sundays and protection of children.
• 1891: Introduction of State supervision of industry.
• 1891: Admission of voluntary workers' committees in companies.
• 1891: Prohibition of Sunday work in industry and manual labour.
• 1892: Renewal of the Law concerning health insurance with extension of compulsory insurance to family members.
• 1895: Prohibition of Sunday trading.]
• 1899: Law regulating the insurance against disability
• 1901: Promotion of housing for labourers
• 1905: Committees for workers' representation become compulsory in the mining industry.
• 1908: Maximum number of working hours, ban on nocturnal work for women and young people.
• 1911: State insurance statute
• 1911: Introduction of pensions for the bereaved. (widows, orphans)
• 1911: Insurance law for office staff. (white collar workers)
• 1911: Law for home workers. (Regulation of home industry)]
• 1916: Lowering of the retirement age for workers from 70 to 65 years.
• 1916: Lowering of retirement age for women to 60 years.

The Sarajevo Crisis and the Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia

The reference provided in the article also contained the following in the original German, which was subsequently deleted by the editors:

"Eine brillante Leistung fur eine Frist von bloss 48 Stunden! Das ist mehr, als man erwarten konnte! Ein grosser moralischer Erfolg fur Wien; aber damit fallt jeder Kriegsgrung fort, und (der Gesandte) Giesl hatte ruhig in Belgrad bleiben sollen. Daraufhin hatte ich niemals Mobilmachung befohlen!" [Emil Ludwig, "Wilhelm der Zweite," Ernst Rowohlt Verlag, Berlin, 1926, p421].

[User: Domenico Rosa, 17 April 2006]

---

Joachim was married to  U. P. Urass on March 11 1916 in Berlin
They had on child HRH Karl Franz Joseph Wilhelm fredrich Eduard Paul Prince of Prussia.

Prince Joachim died of a self-inflicted gunshot on July 18th 1920

DLC

I'm seeking some information that readers of this page might know. I am looking for information of Prince Joachim Von Hohenzollern, son of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Joachim was discussed as a possible 'king of Ireland' by Padraig Pearse and the leaders of Ireland's Easter Rising in 1916. Am I correct is thinking that Prince Joachim was married in 1916 and died in 1920? All info greatly received. JTD

---

"Frederick Wilhelm Viktor Albert of Hohenzollern" seems to be a strange mixture of English and German:
"Frederick William Victor Albert of Hohenzollern" (English);
"Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Hohenzollern" (German).
S.

You say Wilhelm's mother was the sister of the wife of Tsar Nicholas II. But as Wilhelm's mother was the daughter of Queen Victoria, that would make Nicholas II's wife the daughter of Queen Victoria too. But she wasn't, was she?

---

Let's straighten this out. Wilhelm II's mother was Victoria of Great Britain, ie Queen Victoria's eldest child. Alexandra's mother was Princess Alice of Great Britain. Alice was the second daughter of Queen Victoria. A diagram to illustrate this shows the following:

                          VICTORIA
                             |
                   --------------------------
                   |                         |
                  Victoria                 Alice
                   |                         |
                  WILHELM II               Alix (Alexandra) = NICHOLAS II

As can be seen, Alexandra and Wilhelm were first cousins, and they were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria.

---

Indeed. Let's jump right in and fix that. The Hohenzollern is at least non-macaronic now, though I think we could make it clear that it's a house name and not a surname... but one thing at a time. -- Someone else 07:23 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

---

Of course its a surname - Wilhem II was Wilhelm von Hohenzollern just as Nicholas II was Nicholas Romanov

They are back-formations from the name of House or Dynasty. In general monarchs do not use surnames. Nicholas was no more Nicholas Romanov than Victoria was Victoria Guelph. -- Someone else

---

Well when they were monarchs thats true but after they lost their thrones they used their family names again

They may not use surnames, but they have them. For example, the Royal Family's name in the United Kingdom is Windsor, but the surname is Windsor-Mountbatten (or perhaps Mountbatten-Windsor, I forget which order!). JTD

It's not so much that you forget: the ordiniance which dictates surnames for those of "Her Majesties" descendants "that require one" was poorly drafted. Those who require one seem to be those without either a princedom or a dukedom. and they are sparse on the ground. But the law is silent on what the surname of those who don't require them night be<G>! -- - Someone else 06:53 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

One might note that the unidentified commenter who claimed that "after they lost their thrones they used their famiy names again" is simply untrue. The Royal House of Prussia, for instance, uses the surname "Prinz von Preussen" (that is to say, Prince of Prussia), and the current head of the house is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen, not "Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern". john 00:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Good work and 100 per cent accurate. Eireman.

---

Could someone clarify how he can be "Prince of Prussia" when Prussia as an entity was legally abolished in 1947?

PMelvilleAustin 11:03 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

The Hohenzollern still carry that title. It is part of their legal surnames, which has not been affected by the abolition of Prussia as a state. See, for example, [1] about Königliche Hoheit Prinz Georg Friedrich Ferdinand von Preußen, which appears to be the full name of the current boss of the Hohenzollern family. They cannot call themselves "King" anymore, but the Königliche Hoheit (Royal Highness) appears to be part of the name as well (I'd have to do more research of that). Now, how this guy signs a cheque when doing his groceries is another question. Djmutex 11:21 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Update: This is really a legal question, so I looked it up in Palandt, Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code, 61. ed. 2002). And it's a complex issue, unfortunately. Name particles of nobility are, according to Article 109 subsection 3 of the 1919 constitution of the Weimar Republic, part of the legal surname. This article's validity has been prolongued until today, but the reasons are still unclear to me (it is not listed in Article 140 Grundgesetz at least). Anyway, it appears that anyone carrying a noble title at the time the Weimar constitution came into effect can still carry that title today. Djmutex 11:36 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

If I may answer to that as a German: The "legal" name is Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preussen with Prinz von Preussen being his surname. Strictly speaking it is not allowed to put the Prinz in the front, or abreviate the von, but it's generally tolerated. Regarding the Königliche Hoheit, this is no official part of the name, but only used out of courtesy or lack of knowledge, probably both. I think that I read once about a special law, that the daughter of someone with the surname Prinz von XY can have the surname Prinzessin von XY instead, but I'm not totally sure if this is true. 195.141.122.227 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Should the rumoured jealousy between The Kaiser and his uncle (Edward) be mentioned, along with the fact that he was by direct descent of the ELDEST of 9 Victoria's children? The bizarre anatogonist behaviour displayed by the Kaiser during the Dreadnought race and the diplomatic twisting before WW1 need to be emphasised more. (27 Nov 2004)

---

Would it be perhaps helpful to add in facts about his being raised largely by his grandfather who became his strongest influence and thus resulted in the alienation of Wilhelm from his parents - resulting in the rift between him and his mother after he ascended to the throne? The current reference to his relationship with his mother as being a poor one because of her "cold" feelings toward him and her trying to "beat" his handicap out of him is not accurate. While indeed she did bear a great deal of guilt for his handicap she was never guilty of beating him - indeed - he suffered more at the hands of his grandfather's beliefs as to how a future kaiser should be raised then he ever did from his mother's attentions.

Anti Nazi?

Improbable as it seems, the article appears to paint an anti Nazi picture of the Kaiser. Is this accurate? -Litefantastic 23:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

He was certainly not pro-Nazi. I'd need to look at the article again to see if the impression it gives is accurate, though. john k 02:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The 'Nazi' part of the Trivia section should be edited. Wilhelm's concept of rule was founded on romantic Medieval ideas and he believed that monarchy was installed by the grace of God - it's safe to say he despised all kinds of 'revolutionary' and 'socialist' political movements. Like many other Interbellum conservatives and members of the German nobility, he hated the Nazis' rude behaviour and appearance.

For example, shortly after the Nazis seized power, Göring was sent to see Wilhelm in order to try to talk him into becoming the Nazis' figure-head. They argued a couple of hours and Wilhelm called Göring a fool in his diary.

The paragraph 'Would Wilhelm have been in opposition to the Holocaust if he had lived to witness it?' is pointless in my opinion. 141.53.194.251 14:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Read it carefully. It never said that Wilhelm admired the Nazis or their ways. He only expressed his (grudging) respect at the fact that Hitler managed to do what the German Imperial Army couldn't do in the first war.

---

The article quotes Wilhelm as saying that he felt embarrased to be a German upon hearing of Hitler's persecutions of the Jews. No source is quoted. Many other sources seem to say that the Kaiser was anti-semitic, such as his 1921 interview when he referred to Jews as "insects" and he expressed dismay that he wasn't harsher with them--going so far as to blame Jews for WWI. What is the source for the article's quote? Rab sb 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the Kaiser's views on the Jews were complicated. He was undeniably anti-semitic, but he also had intimate Jewish friends. I wouldn't be surprised if he, at the same time, called Jews "insects" and blamed them for World War I but also disapproved of Nazi persecutions. But a source is needed for the quote. john k 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The following reference has been added: "The Jewish persecutions of 1938 horrified the exile. 'For the first time I am ashamed to be a German.'" [Michael Balfour, "The Kaiser and his Times," Houghton Mifflin (1964) p. 419] User:Italus 12 Nov 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He's definetly not a Nazi. He and Adolf Hitler are completely different men. Tharnton345 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Heir

Who is the current head of the Hohenzollern house?

The current head of the House of Hohenzollern is HRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia. He is the son of Prince Louis Ferdinand II of Prussia; Prince Louis Ferdinand II of Prussia is the son of Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, who was the son of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia. Hope that helps.Prsgoddess187 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Louis Ferdinand I's father was the Crown Prince, not Wilhelm II. LF was Wilhelm II's grandson. john k 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Wasn't Wilhelm II also Emperor of Baratśa (1937-1941)?

Wilhelm & Willam

Shouldn't it also mention his English name? any thoughts? Dudtz 7/30/05 2:36 PM EST

No. He was also called Wilhelm in English. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

He is often called William in English, so the name should at least be mentioned. 192.87.152.234 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Why? People know Wilhelm is German for William. What is the point of stating the bleeding obvious. It is like saying a satellite circles the earth (which is round). We don't have to state the patiently obvious. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In English, he is often called William, as the anon notes. I see no reason not to mention it. john k 21:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Or more often, "Bill"! Deb 22:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There, edited the german name, as Albert is "albrect" in german. Also added the full english, as just an interesting tidbit of info. -Alex 12.220.157.93 11:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"As Albert is Albrect in german" ? Sorry, I am German and never heared about "albrect" ( there is Albrecht, but Albert and Albrecht are two differrent German names )131.173.12.120 10:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be Wilhelm seeing as how your name doesn't change when you go to another place?

That is incorrect. William's own mother called him William. The names of monarchs are frequently anglicized. Charles 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah and he hated it or at least it says so here.

In referring to a monarch, isn't it polite to pronounce his/her name in his/her native language. For example, newspapers in English did not say Hapsburg, they said Habsburg which is the appropriate German way of saying it. So, I think the title of this page should be Wilhelm II, German Emperor; not William II, German Emperor. Emperor001 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being polite or impolite. Besides that, William is dead. Habsburg/Hapsburg is a different situation. Habsburg is the accepted English form. Given names cannot be compared to house names. The given name of a monarch generally transcends territorial/cultural borders. In French, the Queen of the UK is Élisabeth, in Dutch, Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden is Karel XVI Gustaaf. This has been an accepted practise for centuries and those who remain under their ethnic form are the exception rather than the rule. We have French kings named Henry and Francis and we have Holy Roman Emperors named Francis and Charles. I could go on, but I think the picture is clear. Charles 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are all of the sections about the pretenders' to the German Empire names are in German while the actual emperors are referred to by their English names. Shouldn't we be consistent. I am considering changing the name of this article from William II, German Emperor, to Wilhelm II, German Emperor to be consistent with the other pages. Please comment on this so I can be sure that this is or isn't the best decision. I want to avoid an edit war. Emperor001 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they should be consistent, but it isn't so. As I had indicated, this is the convention for monarchs. Pretenders are not monarchs so it does not apply to them. Also, for every monarch there are hundreds of other royals. Sometimes there is supporting evidence for an English name, other times there is not. This article is already consistent with all the other German Emperors and all the other Kings of Prussia and it was moved via a vote to make it so. Charles 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, the Wikipedia policy for names is to go with the most common names in English, and from what I've heard/read, "Wilhelm" is more used in English than William! (I think this might stem from a desire among English speakers to play up his German-ness during the war...) But it's true that most English speakers know monarchs by Anglicized names, so I guess I support this policy for article names. Although Wilhelm here could be an exception. Brutannica 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just so you know my World Book Encyclopedia names him Wilhelm rather than William so what makes you think William is the more common name in English for him?Jamhaw 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

Most books I have read, including the World Book, say Wilhelm. Emperor001 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All the sources I've found list his as Wilhelm, including all my history texts and period memoirs, he definitely seems to be "one of those exceptions". Since he reigned in a period of growing German nationalism, it makes sense in retrospect that he'd have insisted on the German name. -68.77.202.224 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Also, according to the earlier comments in this section, the article was initially written leaving out his English name, and someone eventually took it upon themselves to then rewrite the article to give the impression that the English name was the more common. All without citing sources to support this or even mention it here. -68.77.202.224 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't insist on the German name at all, his own mother called him William. The anglicized name William is still widely used. Känsterle 09:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

His mother's usage is hardly relevant. The German name Wilhelm is far more widely used than the anglicised form. The use of 'William' in this article looks bizarre and is unencyclopedic.217.43.226.218 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That is purely a matter of personal opinion. Charles 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And is the fact that Google has twice as many hits for "Wilhelm II" as "William II" also a matter of personal opinion?--24.22.233.21 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Wilhelm is in my experience more common, indeed I had never seen him referred to as 'William' before this article. Ivan corresponds to John, but Ivan the Terrible isn't called John the Terrible OSmeone (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to put to rest the notion that William is weird, ahistorical and what not. The Times (of London) has called him William all his life: [2] (June 16, 1888) [3] (June 5, 1941) If you check others newspapers I'm sure you'll come to the same result. I don't know when people started referring to him as Wilhelm in English. The birth of Prince William sure has given Wilhelm a boost. Let's not remind people they are relatives is probably what many copy editors thought then. --85.181.238.155 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Eulenburg scandal

Has anyone seen a clear citation that Wilhelm was bisexual, as talked on basis of e.g Eulenburg affair. Arrigo 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen anything beyond extremely loose speculation. john k 15:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Which famous pe4rson has never been discussed to be bisexual in hstory ? 131.173.12.120 10:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I have removed the following paragraph in the WWI section:

It is not unfair to call it the Kaiser's war. He was the leader, and appointed all the people, who caused the war, And he supported the moves to war, and wanted Germany top be the lead power. Sayibng he is not responsibkle, is like saying Stalin was not responsible for some Gulag executions, as he sometimes probabaly regretted what some of his people, did.

It is POV, polemic, and neither its content nor style conform to a minimum encyclopedic standard. ASav

It was technically Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary who started the war. One could argue that the Serbs precipitated it, as Gavrilo Princep, who assassinated Franz Ferdinand and ignited the spark that began the war, may have been trained in Serbia and backed by the Serbian government, although this is not proved beyond a doubt. But Franz Joseph's armies fired the first artillery shots and it was he who began the war. Of course, it can also be argued that Wilhelm instigated this by giving the Austro-Hungarians a blank cheque, saying he would back them all the way. But Wilhelm did not start the war, Franz Joseph did. But he was not presonally hated so much as Wilhelm, so Wilhelm made a better enemy for PR purposes. RockStarSheister (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Which blank cheque? You mean the telegram from his Norway cruise where he said that Germany will stand by Austria in face of this terrible even (the assassination)? There was no blanke cheque, there was no real German policy either or half the German government including wouldn't have stayed on holidays so the crisis could spiral out of control further. His (and the German government's) fault was ineptitude in dealing with a diplomatic crisis when facing one. That a 80 year old monarch might overreact when his successor gets shot (and after having seen his wife assassinated decades earlier) is also quite understandable. At the end of his reign he knew Habsburg was in ruins even though he didn't even do anything in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.102.53 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuttgart

"Wilhelm had his summer palace in Stuttgart. When in residence, he held a parade every Sunday at noon. In full military dress and on a white steed, the Kaiser and his cavalry marched up and down the main street; the townsfolk were "encouraged" to attend. " Does somebody know where in Stuttgart he used to reside? For me, as a resident of Stuttgart, it would be quite interesting to know. --Malbi 13:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, but my guess would be the palace was the Neues Schloss and the street was Konigstrasse? Craigy (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

that surely is a mix-up with wilhelm II. last king of württemberg, which capital was stuttgart--Tresckow 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the writer means Strassburg, which was in the German Empire at this date. Wilhelm did regularly visit Strassburg and also held parades in this city203.10.110.131 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• It can`t be the Neues Schloß in Stuttgart, which was the residence of Wilhelm II of Wurttemberg, as Tresckow pointed out. Strasbourg seems more likely, since there is indeed an imperial palace there (the Palais du Rhin at the Place de la République); that would also explain the quotation marks around "encouraged". However, I don't think he was in Strasbourg that often...Malbi

it cant be Stuttgart, living there i can definitely tell you he was here extremely seldom and there is no imperial palace. ill remove the statement--Tresckow 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

and again I removed this incorrect information. William never ever owned a castle in Stuttgart. Three castles or palaces exist in Stuttgart, one nea enough to be the suspected castle. Those are: Castle Solitude, Rosenstein Castle, the Old Castle (Stuttgart) and the New Castle (Stuttgart). None of these was owned by him or another Prussian monarch. --Tresckow 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• My own family history (anecdotal) says the Kaiser had a summer house in Stuttgart, where my grandmother played as a small child (her grandmother was a servant in the house). Waterwitch59 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian War

Someone more astute than I should write a paragraph about Wilhelm's military experience. As I recall, he was head of the Prussian 3nd Army in the Franco-Prussian War and had a similar command in the Prussian-Austrian War of 1866. I'm reading Wawro's book on the subject right now, but I don't think I could marshall too many facts other than that basic one.

• im sorry to rain on your parade, but there is no way on earth that wilhelm II would have been a commander of any military squadron - much less an entire army - in the franco-prussian war. he was only 11 years old when prussia went to war with france in 1870, and was a mere toddler during the six weeks' war with austria.

Perhaps someone has confused Wilhelm with his father, who certainly served in these campaigns???? Member of the Fan Club 203.10.110.133 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A minor quibble -- the article refers to him dismissing the "cautious" Bismarck. Given that Bismarck was the architect of German unification, doesn't this make him look a bit weak? Is there a better way to put this? I don't know the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, so I will defer on this.

• I noted that statement also and its a very common error. People tend to perceive quiet, calculating and manipulating people as weak, while a jeck who make a lot of noise but actually harmless look threatening. You only end up discovering the truth after the events.

• I have read the two guys biography and I would have been scared to deal with Bismark. The guy was a strategic thinker with his eyes homed permanently on power. You can tell that by how he handled France and that telegram. Very strategic indeed. His strategic method ensured he completely destroyed everybody on his way. I can't even be sure whether his peaceful co-existance with the rest of Europe was driven by the need for a united Europe or desire to govern even larger area. The article seem to insenuate its the former, but I feel it was the later.

• On the other hand, Wilhelm was very noisy and predictable. The article states " He sought to expand German colonial holdings, "a place in the sun"". However, if you look at most of his actions, they were not cohesive and heading no where, leave alone making Germany a place in the sun. He seemed impropmtu and uncalculating as can be proved by his media interview. Why would he have reglected that interview, if he intended to say what he said. Then there is his health and horrible childhood. Given those facts, I find it hard to blame his entirely for world war 1 and would say the rest of Europe responded in simplistic manner. In short he wasn't as scarely as the former IMHO.

• I think his (Bismark) dismissal had something to do with both needed power. If Wilhem was aware of Bismark relationship with the previous kings and needed power, Bismark had zero leverage since he was very unpopular within Germany - no elective power - and deliver all his power from the now hostile monarchy.

Child of Kaiser Wilhelm II

It has been brought to my attention that during Wilhelm's stay at his Summer Palace in Stuttgart he had an affair with a women named Theresia Burian and she had a child (born in Austria under his instruction) by him named Amandus Burian. Does anyone know anything more about this?

Response: As a grandchild of Amandus Burian, I heard stories of being related to someone in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm but I have found no proof of these stories in my genealogical research to date. It does appear that my grandfather, Amandus Burian who was born in Vienna in 1886 was an illegitimate child whose mother's name, according to Ancestry.com records, appears to have been Theresia Burian. I suppose that if there is any truth to the story it may never come to light unless there is written documentation somewhere. HBurian 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

see above at Stuttgart.--Tresckow 23:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Poorly-edited excerpt

I have removed the following excerpt from the "Life after 1918" section and restored the original:

Although he had asked Hitler for a small military funeral, which included August von Mackensen and Rupprecht of Bavaria, along with a few other military advisors. Wilhelm's request was ignored and Hitler gave him a grand funeral 'worthy of an emperor' full with Nazi nationalism and swastikas, a symbol which Kaiser Wilhelm II repeatedly asked not to be displayed ,just like other Nazi regalia, at the final rites was completely ignored.

It had obvious grammatical errors and, in my opinion, contained certain partisan elements.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.179 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Kaiser's sexual proclivities

The Kaiser's hand fetish, to which I have just alluded under "trivia," is attested to in Giles Macdonogh's The Last Kaiser: The Life of Wilhelm II. I added this information last year and it was quickly deleted. If this is because of lack of credulity on the part of whoever edited it out, rest assured that the aforementioned book references it in great detail. I hope the information will remain in the future, if only because it's incredibly interesting. Oldkinderhook 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) hez s smothe prestonater

A hand fetish? Someone want to explain that one, as I thought I had heard them all? I've never heard or read that about William. Is it only included in that one source? Seems qustionable. And to be honest, doesn't pretty much ever teenaged pubescent boy have a "hand fetish"? RockStarSheister (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SHOULD THE TRIVIA SECTION BE REMOVED?

I am of the opinion that the trivia list has gotten far too long and needs to be cropped. People can go on and on and on and on about Wilhelm's absurdities, weird hobbies, sexual orientation nix nix nix.

It will never be exhaustive.

Any suggestions on the next step?

---

On the question of trivia: how did Wilhelm cut so many trees? One harmed? Xis 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Kaiser's tree-cutting proclivities are well documented. Giles MacDonogh records it all. I've found, however, that few people seem to believe the facts from MacDonogh's work that I post on this article - primarily the Kaiser's hand fetish, his tree-chopping and his excursions to Corfu. Therein lies the problem with Wikipedia; those facts seen as improbable are dismissed out of hand by a gaggle of self-appointed experts who do not have the requisite body of knowledge to either confirm or deny them. I think we should post as many pieces of trivia about Kaiser Wilhelm II as we can, as even the seemingly most trivial facts about him can help the observer gain insight into his personality and motivations as ruler. Oldkinderhook 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about his hand fetish. But his fondness of chopping wood is wellknown. You can see footage of him chopping would n many documentaries.--Tresckow 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move, 2006

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The title "of Germany" may be commonly used, but it is blatantly wrong as it was intentionally not adopted. See Wilhelm_I,_German_Emperor#Kaiser --Matthead 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey, 2006

• Support the proposed move to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Actually, I'd prefer William II, German Emperor, but the poll does not include that question. Shilkanni 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak-ish support I support this format, but would optimally prefer to have "unique" cases of titling discussed as additions to the naming conventions. I agree with Shilkanni on the preference for William though. Charles 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Prsgoddess187 10:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. In this case, I do not support the anglicized name. Unlike his father and grandfather, Kaiser Wilhelm is universally known in the English-speaking world by the German form of his name. john k 11:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, as I disagree with John- the majority of books in my collection refer to "William II", not "Wilhelm II", and I find it odd to have the potential naming on WP go from "William I" to "Frederick III" to "Wilhelm II". Olessi 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Support weakly as dab. I will oppose a move of Napoleon III or Louis-Philippe, however. Septentrionalis 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Noel S McFerran 02:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Also opinions above

• William. Septentrionalis 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree with John's statement that "Wilhelm" is universally used in preference over "William"; English books in my personal collection use "William" more than "Wilhelm". Google Books gives a slight edge for Wilhelm II over William II, as does Google Scholar (Wilhelm II, and William II). However, the difference in hits is not overwhelming, and I find it odd that all of the Hohenzollerns would be listed under Anglicized titles on WP except for the last monarch. If William is indeed used, Wilhelm should certainly be in bold in the title as well, however. Olessi 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's probably too late to expect a reply, and the argument seems to have been resolved already, but this is wrong. There are only a handful of monarchs and other rulers who are referred to as "Wilhelm II," but there are MANY who are referred to as "William II." Try filtering out the results that include "kaiser," "Germany," "WWI," etc. and you'll see that most of the results on Google Books/Scholar for "William II" aren't about the Kaiser at all. Among the more famous monarchs who are referred to as William II are William the Conqueror (who was the first William of England but the second of Normandy), the Conqueror's son William Rufus, William II of Sicily, William II of Orange, William III of England and of Orange (who was William II of Scotland), and William II of the Netherlands. And there are more, the Wiki article I linked to has about two dozen. So even aside from the speciousness of the books argument which Poulsen has already addressed, your argument about the number of hits is faulty as well.--24.22.233.21 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It's hard to argue about the validity of the books you have, not knowing which they are, but if you check out the bibliography section of this very article which sums up the most prolific historians; Röhl and the "Corfu Papers" gang, the vast majority refers to the emperor as "Wilhelm". Poulsen 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A list of books in my current possession referencing the emperor is listed below. Olessi 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1) As you conclude yourself from the list, the closer studies refer to him as Wilhelm, which I would interpret as an argument for keeping the article at Wilhelm II.

2) Seeing that even Encyclopædia Britannica refers to Wilhelm II as William II, I'm getting more torn as what to call him, but I still find the chief authorities to be Röhl and his co-writers of the "Corfu Papers" who use Wilhelm II.

3) However, having mostly looked through the Danish monarchy I wasn't aware of the anglisising of fore example the French monarchy pages. I do suggest that instead of deciding only for Wilhelm II (and the ongoing vote for Wilhelm I at that article talk page), a more central consensus should be made whether to convert all German royalty to English spelling or not, in order not to create too many inconsistencies between the German monarchy pages. Poulsen 08:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. William is better than Wilhelm when a monarch is in question because this is English wp. Consistency between monarchs. Shilkanni 09:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - use English.--Aldux 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with condition - my encyclopaedias list William under his Anglicised name. However, I am of the opinion that his original German name should be mentioned as well. It is only right. (Maybe we can list it in brackets?)

Why should names be translated ? His name has been Wilhelm and not William. Just as someone called Frederick is called Frederick and not Friedrich. These are two different names, jsut as someone whose name is maria is not called mary as those are two variants of the same name but variants. Just as Louis and Ludwig are different names ( a french guy called louis would neglect being called ludwig). 131.173.18.59 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig XVI. (Frankreich)? BTW, within vote discussions is not the place to discuss the same after the vote has been completed. Charles 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion , 2006

Matthead, start a discussion at the naming conventions page if you feel strongly about this. Charles 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Wilhelm - William within books currently in my possession: Wilhelm:

• Robert Citino- The German Way of War
• Philip G. Dwyer - Modern Prussian History: 1830-1947
• Norman Davies - Europe: A History
• David Kirby - The Baltic World: 1772-1993
• John Keegan - The First World War
• William Shirer - The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
• David Fromkin - A Peace to End All Peace

William:

• Alexandra Richie - Faust's Metropolis
• Martin Kitchen - Cambridge Illustrated History: Germany
• Rudolf von Thadden - Prussia: The History of a Lost State
• Geoffrey Barraclough - The Origins of Modern Germany
• Hajo Holborn - A History of Modern Germany: 1840-1945
• Friedrich Heer - The Holy Roman Empire
• Robert K. Massie - Dreadnought
• Erich Eyck - Bismarck and the German Empire
• Fritz Stern - Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire
• Gordon Craig - The Politics of the Prussian Army: 1640-1945
• H.W. Koch - A History of Prussia
• Giles MacDonogh - Berlin
• Oscar Halecki - A History of Poland
• Nicholas Riasanovsky - A History of Russia
• Gordon Brook-Shepherd - The Austrians
• Dennis Showalter - Tannenberg: Clash of Empires
• Jiří Louda - Lines of Succession
• PWN - History of Poland
• Herbert Eulenberg - The Hohenzollerns

Biographies of the emperor seem to use Wilhelm (as seen in the Further Reading section of the article), while in my experience books which mention him (but do not feature him) refer to him as William. Olessi 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Result

There is consensus about the page move. I think a majority prefers "William" over "Wilhelm", so I'm moving the page to William II, German Emperor (although personally I prefer Wilhelm in this case). Eugène van der Pijll 21:49, 24 June 2006 (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.

I prefer Wilhelm II , too, and regard the move to William II as a stupid mistake. I await with baited breath for Ivan the Terrible to become John the Terrible as the logic is exactly the same. However, this comment came by too late to make any difference in this debate. Arno 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt this logic be integrated into the policy on naming conventions? We will have to rewrite all the articles which defer to using the persons actual name. -Ste|vertigo 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never met a single person who refers to the Kaiser as "William." In over 5 years of study and meetings with many expert historians, the universally recognised form of "Wilhelm" has been used. I have only ever seen the term Emperor William II used in outdated British textbooks. In England he is actually just known as 'The Kaiser'- Change article to Wilhelm II, German Kaiser. ~James

Yeah, everyone calls him the Kaiser, and he is more commonly known as Wilhelm not William. OK let's move the page of Juan Carlos of Spain to John Charles - I'm sure that'll please everyone!

His grandfather is definitely better known as "William," but I agree that he is more widely called Wilhelm, although I don't think it's anywhere near as overwhelming as some of you folks are claiming. I also strongly oppose changing the title to "Kaiser." I know he is called "the Kaiser," or "Kaiser Wilhelm," but "Kaiser" is a title with a clear English translation. We shouldn't be exoticizing terms like that, and "the Emperor" is certainly used frequently enough. john k 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

'Exotocising' whatever! When does anyone ever go round calling him 'the emperor'? People call him the 'Kaiser', people in Germany call him the Kaiser, calling him emperor in English translation only confuses things. In Wilhelm II's time, Germany, Russia, Ausrtia-Hungary, India, Japan, and China all had emperors. What's your point? ~James.

Your comment makes no sense. The Emperor of Austria was, of course, also called "Kaiser" in German. Känsterle 10:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Känsterle says. It's true, though, that "the Kaiser" generally means Wilhelm II - but, er, The Kaiser already redirects here. So I'm not sure what the issue is. john k 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

thats just dumbing down facts. As if Americans or British could be overwhelmed with facts or non english words. It would make more sense to redirect William II to Wilhelm. Its simply wrong and inconsistent--Tresckow 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling him "William" is neither wrong nor inconsistent. It might be ill-advised, but not because it is either wrong or inconsistent. Beyond that, the reason to use "Emperor" isn't because readers would be "overwhelmed" by "non-English words," but so as to emphasize that, in fact, "Kaiser" is the same thing as "Emperor." What is inconsistent is to call German Emperors "Kaisers" and to call Holy Roman Emperors and Emperors of Austria "Emperors." john k 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comment above that naming Kaiser Wilhelm "William II, German Emperor" is along the same lines as naming Ivan the Terrible "John the Terrible" on the same grounds. Even though the Wikipedia guidelines say to use the English name, nobody in common use ever calls him anything other than "Kaiser Wilhelm". Maybe we should look at changing the guidelines, since the Anglicized name in cases like these are rarely used and probably aren't known by the majority of readers. Alexthe5th 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, rarely see him referred to simply as "Kaiser Wilhelm", which is a wholly nonacademic format in English. Charles 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I bet you could not find a single source written in the last 75 years that uses "John the Terrible." On the other hand, one could likely find dozens that use "William II." The comparison is entirely inapt. john k 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias

What I notice the most about the article is the ongoing comments and sentences about Great Britain, often in such a way that one might think this article is not about the german emperor, but rather about his connections to the British culture etc. We're not living in the beginning of the 20th century anymore, where even scholars tried to make their countries superior to others etc., so I don't like this kind of bias and I hope the article is going to be normalized at some points to be neutral in content.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.29.82.127 (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I understand the rationale behind using the English form William II for the article, but I'm not so sure regarding this introduction:

William II or Wilhelm II (born Frederick William Albert Victor of Prussia; German: Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Viktor von Preußen) (27 January, 1859–4 June 1941) (...)

- I think he was not "born" resp. baptized Frederick William Albert Victor of Prussia but Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Viktor von Preußen. Using the English form for the article's title and when referring to him in the body text seems appropriate and other Wikipedias do the same by using their language (e.g. fr:Guillaume II d'Allemagne, is:Vilhjálmur 2. Þýskalandskeisari, it:Guglielmo II di Germania etc.), but although his mother was a daughter of Queen Victoria, I presume that William, being the son of German Frederick III, was christened in the German form. Therefore, how about:

William II or Wilhelm II (born Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Viktor von Preußen; English: Frederick William Albert Victor of Prussia) (27 January, 1859–4 June 1941) (...)

What do you think? Gestumblindi 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Half a year ago and still wrong? You are correct, and I'll change it. Forelyn 07:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not "correct" to change it to "Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm ... ". In English as a prince he would have been called Prince Frederick William Albert Victor, particularly if these names were announced to his grandmother or in any place that speaks English. Legal names here don't matter so much as given names do. We don't say someone was crowned "Deutscher Kaiser Wilhelm". Charles 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You would be right if this discussion was just generally about William's (or Wilhelm's) given name in the connection of an english article. But 'born as' specifically implies the exact name he was given at birth, and that, beyond doubt, was not "Frederick William ... of Prussia." That form is the english translation of the name he was given at birth, and is not correct in connection with 'born as'. I refer you to the german or (on neutral ground, and using 'Hohenzollern') the french version. I understand your reason for using William throughout the article, but claiming it to be his birth name is wrong. (As is, I suspect after reading the french version, the princely title instead of 'Hohenzollern'.) Is there perhaps some Wikipedia rule for birth names that would help us here?

By the way I only just noticed the related discussion higher up - I wouldn't have changed the article without discussion had I seen that related part before. Sorry for that. Forelyn 13:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Church records of his christening will probably show neither German nor English name variants but Latin ones. The German and English used to be thought of merely as representations of the Latin names. --85.181.233.197 (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay

This page has grown a lot since I last visited. I remember it being a puny, relatively uninformative page back then, and was disappointed that it didn't mention any of the historical controversy regarding his role in German politics. I'm cheered to see it mentioned in the opening, and to see more info here. Meinen Glückwunsch! Brutannica 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I'm amazed at the terrible whitewash in the article of Wilhelm's views of Jews. He did criticise the Kristallnacht, but then so did Himmler. I have added sourced information regarding his documented views of Jews and his endorsement of conspiracy theories of world Jewish domination.--Johnbull 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He was a good "friend" (?) of James Simon http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/James_Simon , who had always an open door at his court. Replaceable (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Car horn

The horn of the German Emperor's first automobile played Donner's "Heda! Heda! Hedo!" motif from Das Rheingold. William himself thought that Wagner's music made "too much noise".

Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.183.19.77 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That may indeed be the reason why his car horn played Wagner! After all, who wants to go to the opera and hear car horns? ;-) Charles 09:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm last political mistakes

With Wilhelm letting Lenin take power in place of the Romonovs-this was William's last and most disastrous foreign policy mistake — for while it did knock Russia out of the war and allow Germany to continue the war on the Western front-it replaced the Romanov dynasty with the so called "Red Tsars" (1917-1991) — such as Stalin (1922-1953). Equally disastrous for Germany and the world was the domestic policy of William and Crown Prince William decision to abdicate claims to political power which led to a power vacuum of a weak republic which would be replaced by Adolf Hitler (1933-1945). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.163 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The abdication of the Kaiser was forced by Woodrow Wilson as a condition for agreeing to the armistice requested by the German High Command. See the article section "October 1918 telegrams."Italus (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, this wicked German Emperor did such things.Russian Revolution in 1917 hadn't any worker, only well-born figures;all of them supported with many money and gold from this wicked man.Agre22 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Fair use rationale for Image:Kaiser Wilhelm car.jpg

Image:Kaiser Wilhelm car.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Get the Monkey into the article!

Hey guys, someone should really incorporate (right word?) the Emperor Tamarin kind-of-fun fact into this article. The king got a monkey named after him, how cool (and off course damn relevant) isn't that! Andy McDandy (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Full title

The full title must be: William II, German Emperor and King of Prussia

After the WW I the Kaiser only abdicated as German Emperor but not as King of Prussia. The prussian title was always the proudest and oldest. --Kai27 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Kai27

His memoirs

This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7426349.stm says he wrote two volumes of memoirs, but the article does not mention them. 80.2.200.73 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move 2008

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move, 2008

I propose that this article be moved to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Wilhelm is much more common than William and therefore to be consistent with other encyclopedias, this arcticle should say Wilhelm. Emperor001 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, this debate was already hashed out about about two years ago, and it doesn't look like anybody's going to pay that much attention to this article again.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. Every encyclopedia has its own style guide in one way or another and Wikipedia is no exception. His English name is William. Charles 21:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But he's more frequently referred to by his German name, Wilhelm. To borrow someone else's argunment, should we move Ivan the Terrible to John the Terrible? Also, Franz Josef is at Franz Josef, not Francis Jospeh. Emperor001 (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to propose a move, then please follow the official procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Since this is controversial (based on past discussion), it is appropriate to seek wikespread input. If you are going to claim that something is "much more common", then please provide some hard evidence. By the way the Austrian Emperor is at Franz Joseph I of Austria (not Franz Josef as you suggest). Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about Franz Joseph, I hadn't looked at his article lately. Emperor001 (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

William II, German Emperor → Wilhelm II, German Emperor — From all of the sources I've seen, he is more frequently referred to as Wilhelm (even in books where monarchs' names are frequently anglicanized). These sources include the World Book Encyclopedia, my World History Book from High School, and multiple other history books and school textbooks. Most newspapers from the timeframe that I've read also say Wilhelm. He seems to be one of those exceptions. —Emperor001 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose This was already done. He wasn't just called Wilhelm and even if so every encyclopedia has its own style guide. Charles 23:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• That was a whole year ago. May I point out that what may have the majority today may have the minority tomorrow. Emperor001 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Not that I think it'll do any good, since Wikipedia becomes pretty set in its ways once a decision has been reached, but there you have it. While he may not be known as just Wilhelm II, that is by far the most common form of his name in English sources, especially works by historians.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support In the past 25 years there have been some fourteen English-language biographical works about William/Wilhelm which have mentioned his name in their titles. Of these, twelve have called him "Wilhelm" (Röhl - 3 works, Koch, Mombauer, Clark, Van der Kiste, Rettelack, Kohut, Cecil, Hull, Kurtz). Only two have called him "Wiliam" (MacDonough in 2000, Tyler-Whittle in 1977). In more general historical works (i.e. works not specifically about William/Wilhelm) the numbers are admittedly much more even. But it seems to me that the tide has turned. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'd have to see some hard evidence to the contrary. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Of course, as the person requesting this move, I support it (see above). Emperor001 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose We are not tidewaiters, and attempting to predict next year's usage in a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The usage of WWI newspapers is irrelevant here; it suggests, if anything, that the current is the other way. Stay with the consistent and predictable system of WP:NCNT; our usage and problems more closely resemble general historical works than biographies, since we expect the title of this article to be used to link to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not WP:CRYSTAL to point out that there has only been ONE English-language biography of William/Wilhelm in the last thirty years which has called him William, while about a dozen have called him Wilhelm. Why would it be appropriate to go so clearly contrary to current usage? Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see the corresponding move of William I, German Emperor is less popular; the idea of using William I and Wilhelm II seems simply bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There are lots of examples of such differences in Wikipedia - because there is a difference in the scholarly literature. The name of Emperor Francis II of Austria is anglicized, but that of his successor-but-one Franz Joseph I of Austria is not. Ferdinand VII of Spain is anglicized, but his grandson Alfonso XII of Spain is not. Wikipedia is consistent - it follows what English-language scholarship does. It is scholarship which is inconsistent - but Wikipedia is not the place to change that. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Again, I source the World Book. The Wilhelms are at Wilhelm (because Wilhelm is more common for at least the II) and the Friedrichs and Friedrich Wilhelms are at Frederick and Frederick William (because for some reasons, their English names are more common. Emperor001 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Wilhelm II is the common English name for this man, and he's the most famous Wilhelm of all, so if we need consistency (which I'm inclined to doubt) then the others, and particularly William I, German Emperor, should move to Wilhelm... to match this one, not this one match them. Andrewa (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As noted below, dropping the disambiguator then also makes sense, so the article title should ideally end up just as Wilhelm II. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I've heard of him as "Kaiser Bill" but never as William before now.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Later: a search of amazon.com turns up result as follows:
  • "Emperor Wlliam" 1474[4]
  • "Kaiser William" 619[5]
  • "Kaiser Wilhelm" 9048 [6]
  • "Emperor Wilhelm" 791 [7]

Conclusion Wilhelm is overwhelmingly preferred in books to "William". We should also really consider referring to hims as "Kaiser" not "Emperor".--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Emperor to Kaiser sounds intriguing; as Germany's got Chancellor instead of Prime Minister. Plus, look at the Republic of Ireland. Anways, interesting. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support our naming convention calls for use of the "most common name used in English" not for "the name in English". Every cite provided in this discussion shows Wilhelm II to be more commonly used in published/posted English writing than William II. FactStraight (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. William II should remain unless there's a plane to change all the Kings of Prussia & German Emperors. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm open to change but having the German name and the English title sounds odd to me. If we're going to change it to the German version let's have Wilhelm II, Deutscher Kaiser! --Cameron (T|C) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, there already exist exceptions for monarchs who are more well-known under their native/non-English names than the Anglicized forms.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Or just drop the disambiguator and go to plain Wilhelm II, as proposed elsewhere. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a recdirect from "Wilhelm II", which in my opinion is sufficient. Plus, in the naming convention, it says "use English names"; and I don't like the idea of having William I, but Wilhelm II. After all, München is called Munich here, even though I think the majority of literature uses "München" (I know it's not that good as a comparison, but still). -Bundesamt (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Err... I sincerely doubt that the majority of English-language literature refers to that city as anything but Munich. Similarly, it's almost always Bavaria but not Bayern, Saxony but not Sachsen, Cologne but not Köln, etc.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Modified support. An Amazon and Google book search comparison reveals the following results:

Amazon book search for Emperor William II 1,137 books

Amazon book search for Wilhelm II 7,963 books

Google books search for Emperor William II 6,820 books

Google books search for Wilhelm II 11,600 books

This shows that Wilhelm II is the more notable name, even in English. This article should be moved to Wilhelm II, but not to "Wilhelm II, German Emperor", as the disambiguation "German Emperor" becomes unnecessary (a situation which confirms and supports the notability of Wilhelm II). The same goes for Wilhelm I, which should also be moved to Wilhelm I. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing my previous modification per WP:NCNT Sovereigns.3.2 Wilhelm meis (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this counter-proposal though. Deb (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... This survey still concerns a move to Wilhelm II, German Emperor, and while it's quite normal and generally a good idea to come up with a counter proposal and decide it all in a single move discussion, I'd suggest in this case we keep it simple by deciding first whether to do that specific move, ie German or English given name, and then deal with the questions of disambiguators etc after that. Andrewa (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Per the many arguments above, he is more widely known as Wilhelm. After all, the King of Spain is at Juan Carlos I, not John Charles I, so why is this here? --UpDown (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support The royal styles are used where a royal figure is not known by annother common name. He is usually referred to by Kaiser Wilhelm II. Narson (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not sold on the use of English names in every case, and in this case I think a preference for Wilhelm is quite justified. Deb (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Känsterle (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Most history books in my collection refer to him as William, IIRC, so I have a slight preference for the anglicized name; I can expand upon my earlier listing with newer acquisitions if desired. However, I believe that articles on the three emperors should all be at anglicized or German names, not a mixture (ie William I, Frederick III, and Wilhelm II). Olessi (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. There has long been a trend on en.Wikipedia for native-language rendering of names. I do not see why articles on German historical figures are among the only ones still routinely anglicized into forms they may never have heard of. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not that I have seen. We have always used Henry IV of France and Isabella I of Castille; in both cases, there has been a protest from a editor (in neither case using sound English) that this is discriminatory. Askari Mark is indeed expressing himself fluently, but I find the suggestion that he the subject did not hear William, especially from his Uncle Edward, quite odd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, but if you had only read as diligently as you yourself so eloquently write, you would have noticed that I did not make such an assertion about Wilhelm. As to your main point, I am finding the greater discussion to be whether or not to use diacriticals or letters beyond the 26-member English canon. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • We should use them when English normally does. So here: English usage is divided, and we should stay with the normal anglicization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Normally I would agree, but I make an exception for personal names. I am mindful of the fact that both the press and scholars alike employed a variety of transliterations for the name of Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (following Wikipedia’s chosen style) until he wrote a letter in 1986 in which it was spelled “Moammar El-Gadhafi”. Most major news sources (excepting the NYT) announced they would switch to that. (As I understand it, this is probably the closest rendering of his name as pronounced in the Libyan dialect of Arabic.) However, the latest generation of journalists seems to have forgotten this and the stylizations have been becoming more varied of late. The case for “William” vs. “Wilhelm” is much simpler, and it would seem to me that the spelling employed should be the one most used by that person … which, in this case, would be “Wilhelm”. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Names should never be localized. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Even to the English language? Please discount arguments in opposition to WP:NAME#Use English words, which is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And, oddly, I see no sign of moving de:Kalifornien to avoid "localization of names"; does this only work one way? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that your example is the name of an entity (and the only example of a state of the U.S., probably because of that the term exists much longer than California is a state of the U.S.) – not the name of a person. A name is a name and not an English word. The using of WP:NAME#Use English words for person names is IMO a sign of disrespect (Yes, I consider the move from de:Elizabeth II. to de:Elisabeth II. in the German WP as a shame.) --Matthiasb (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, his name was Wilhelm, not William. — Albert Krantz ^¿? 07:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC).
• Support I came here to oppose as my gut feeling was the William was more commonly used. But the sources show otherwise. In fact I keep hearing about a Kaiser Wilhelm which I believe to refer to W II. Agathoclea (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - He is more commonly known as Wilhelm; it's more appropriate. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Names should never be translated as it results in confusion. According to the official birth documents, this royal was baptized as Wilhelm and NOT William. If a decision is made to translate names from their local origin to English, it will be have to be done universally throughout the encyclopedia (and that will be quite a mess). Mariaflores1955 (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The tendency to use Wilhelm seems to be a recent trend, especially amongst Americans. It will be interesting if this move is agreed upon but his grandfather and son remain at William. — AjaxSmack 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Olessi's list above rather suggests that it used to be fashionable in the immediate aftermath of WWII; the WWI view of William II as an alien force was probably more persuasive when considering Hitler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If we change William to Wilhelm? then we would have to change Frederick to Fredrich & Frederick-William to Fredrich-Wilhelm? That's alot of page moving. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the main problem for me is having German names and English titles. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 13:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a problem because you think current English usage does follow this and shouldn't, or because you think English doesn't do it? The second would be a problem in terms of WP:NC, but the first is very much not a problem as the policy now stands. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of any title is our innovation for disambiguity; whether this is from the various William IIs in history or from the more obscure German reigning princes named Wilhelm der Zweite depends on the outcome of this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, these obscure princes don't require us to disambiguate Wilhelm II at all. In English, the emperor is the primary meaning of that name, so we can drop the disambiguator from his article... assume we don't want to keep calling him William. Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Emperor is the English for Kaiser, as Chancellor is the English for Kanzler; but the point is definitely worth discussing. (Similarly, Munich is the English for München, and is used on a majority of English literature; but I will pursue this if Bundesamt wants to.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

From the Survey above: There's a redirect from "Wilhelm II", which in my opinion is sufficient. That's quite irrelevant. If the article is moved, there will of course also be a redirect back from the current name. in the naming convention, it says "use English names". Exactly, and there's ample evidence that Wilhelm rather than William is his common name in English. I don't like the idea of having William I, but Wilhelm II. Wikipedia is full of these inconsistencies and it is our policy to have them. But if in this particular case (and there are other exceptions too) consistency is to be the rule, move the other article. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• What part of WP:NAME makes inconsistency policy? Our objective is clarity and ease of use, especially by readers who aren't already specialists in German history. WP:NAME does invoke WP:NCNT, which implies a consistent anglicizing convention for royalty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you completely miss the examples of Franz Joseph and Alfonso XII above? There are many other exceptions to the Anglicization rule. Clarity and ease of use are best served when we follow whatever happens to be common usage, whether it's consistently Anglicized or not. In this case, Wilhelm is undoubtedly the more common form of this monarch's name.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No I did not; but what do you (or Noel) suppose the Anglicized form of Alfonso to be? I would consider both that and Ferdinand to be as anglicized as we get. However, that assertion, such as it is, is a claim of fact; where is the policy assertion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Err... Alphonse or Alphonso? It's right there in the article for Alfonso. (Incidentally, I have also seen Alphonzo.) But well done on only responding to one example and pretending like the opposing argument has been laid to rest.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Alphonse?!? Surely you mean Gallicized? ;->Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • The standard form of the name when anglicized is Alphonsus (i.e. the same as the Latin form). Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I passed over Francis II/Franz Joseph because I didn't and don't find it particularly persuasive: the Williams are much closer in time, in realm, and in name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, where is the incontrovertible evidence for the claim of fact? We have an Amazon search, which is worse than raw Google, and Noel's opinion, which is that general histories of Germany divide more or less evenly. Whole books on William may find it convenient to disambiguate him from his grandfather, but why should we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This discussion page has proof aplenty. If an Amazon or pure Google search is not "hard" enough for you, Google Scholar also seems to think Wilhelm is more common. Also, Noel cited specifically the number of biographies that used William and Wilhelm. Contrary to your interesting little spin, that's not just "Noel's opinion."--76.104.221.167 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Please remind me by supplying diffs. But take a rest and log in first, your civility is fraying. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • And since you're throwing around the burden of proof, allow me to reply in kind: where's your evidence that William II is the common usage? I haven't seen a single bit of evidence indicating that it is, not in this discussion or any of the previous ones.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The previous discussion is itself evidence that it is: the consensus of anglophone editors that something is English usage. Where common usage is in dispute, considerations of convenience do apply, especially in a field where we are already relying on an admittedly artificial convention for monarchial names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Leaving aside the fact that this is a ridiculous circular argument, most of the editors who supported using William in the previous discussion did not list any evidence but relied on the rather shaky idea that we have to follow WP and consistency. As anybody can prove in seconds with a Wikipedia search, there are dozens of articles on monarchs and other non-English figures that aren't "properly" Anglicized.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Noel's biographies are a small subset of English usage; I have already explained why I find it less than representative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • You really haven't, but feel free to cite some works of your own.--76.104.221.167 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Rather than supplying diffs, I will repeat myself: I find the reliance on biographies inherently unrepresentative: general histories are more numerous, more comparable to what we do, and biographies of William have a clear reason to call him Wilhelm which we do not share; we only have to disambiguate from his grandfather for a few paragraphs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I don't think that that is a totally unreasonable argument (as opposed to some others offered on this page). Sometimes specialists in a topic name it differently from general usage. However, User:76.104.221.167 is absolutely correct that the "William-ites" have not presented any evidence that William is the more common form in English scholarship. Here's some data from Google Books:

germany "wilhelm ii" 1800

germany "william ii" 1668

When one limits to works published within the last twenty years:

germany "wilhelm ii" 862

germany "william ii" 764

But it seems that some editors are not concerned that Wikipedia reflect current usage in English-language publications, and instead prefer to impose other reasons for page names. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, data. Thank you very much. That looks pretty close to a wash to me, at which point I return to my arguments, which were never based on common usage, that "William II" is most convenient. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you might mean by "most convenient". How is it more convenient to use a name which is used only a minority of times in general literature and only occasionally in biographies of the man? I'm not trying to be difficult. I just can't imagine what you mean. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you guys are so big on consistency and Anglicization, how about we change every Ivan to John and every Isabel to Elizabeth? That will surely help our non-expert readers with clarity and ease of use!--76.104.221.167 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • Going to my bookshelf and pulling out a non-biographical source, I find

• • • • • • "The Crown Prince's son: the later Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany..." in the endnotes (p. 1118) of the Collins edition of Volume 1 of Cosima Wagner's diaries. Incidentally his grandather is also referred to as Wilhelmin thir notes And the King of Bavaria is not called Lewis or Louis II either. The Kaisers are Wilhelm, the Tsars are Nicholas and Peter, the old Kings of Spain are Philip and Charles but the current one is Juan Carlos, the Kings of Bavaria are Ludwig. It is the second and third Reich but the Holy German Empire. Practice is determined on indvidual basis--Peter cohen (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• There can be good reasons for doing something on one page (even if I may not agree), but that does not necessarily mean that those reasons have any application on other pages. Clearly William/Wilhelm is called by both names in English-language literature. One could hardly claim that Ivan the Terrible is called John with any frequency or that Isabel II of Spain is called Elizabeth. I don't think that it helps a discussion to misrepresent the arguments of other editors. Some editors believe that in this case the name Wilhelm should be anglicized as William because they believe that there is sufficient literary warrant to do so. I happen to disagree. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those things that goes on a case by case basis. I have seldom seen "William II" in literature, but I have frequently seen "Wilhelm II" in English-language literature. If this article is renamed to "Wilhelm II", the disambiguation "German Emperor" becomes unnecessary, as he is by far the most notable "Wilhelm II". Therefore, I support moving this article to Wilhelm II. Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy with that. In addition we probably need a Wilhelm II (disambiguation) page IMO, see Peter II or John II. I'm still looking got see whether we have any of quite the same format yet, but if not someone has to be first. Andrewa (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the disambiguator is unwise; there will be other Wilhelms (whom we now call William, as William II of Württemberg) who would claim the unmodified name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... there's a redirect to William II of Württemberg from Wilhelm II of Württemberg and three other articles link through it, but the article itself seems to make no mention of the name Wilhelm at all, nor is there any mention of anyone removing it in the talk page. Are you sure that there's significant usage of the name Wilhelm to refer to this particular king in english-speaking circles?

Either way, there's something there to fix. But it seems most unlikely that he could claim the unmodified name when the contributors to the article on him have chosen not to even mention it. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a precedent: Elizabeth I (disambiguation). So I've created Wilhelm II (disambiguation). At present it only disambiguates two rulers; If there really are any other claimants to the name (as suggested above), they should of course be added, as red links if necessary. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the poll seems to be in favor of a move to Wilhelm, should it be Wilhelm II, Wilhelm II, German Emperor, or maybe even an earlier title, Wilhelm II of Germany? Once we decide what the move the article to, I'll move it. Emperor001 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is totally inappropriate for an editor who initiates a move page request to be the one who closes the discussion and does the move. This should be done by an editor who has not participated in the discussion. The discussion is not a simple vote-count (and even if it were, I'm not convinced that a 9-6, or perhaps 10-6 vote is sufficient consensus). I prefer that the editor who closes the discussion be an administrator for the reason that administrators are experienced at dealing with the inevitable complaints after a page has been moved. (And this all comes from somebody in favour of the move). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the move should be closed by an impartial administrator. That said, I think it is indeed a good idea to settle on a new name so it can be settled in one move. Again, as I said before, there have been several other Wilhelm II's, but this is the only Wilhelm II with the requisite world-wide notability to be the Wilhelm II (which is already a redirect leading to this Wilhelm II). While my natural inclination is to move to Wilhelm II, we actually have a fairly explicit guide in the naming conventions of royalty (see Sovereigns 3.2), regarding the use of "XXX, German Emperor" (or "XXX, Holy Roman Emperor" when appropriate), as opposed to "XXX of Germany". Therefor, our new name clearly should be Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Is there consensus behind this name? Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the move which is presently being discussed. The current vote count (and that is not what counts) is now 10 in favour, 6 against. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't know that the editor proposing the move shouldn't be the one to move the article. Wikipedia has so many policies and preferences that it could take years for one to learn them all. Now I have a question, what do we do now? Do we just wait for an administrator to notice this discussion and make the move (since I would assume that asking one to do so would violate some policy)? Emperor001 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is listed at WP:RM, where it is now in the backlog, so I imagine it will be closed within the next few days, as the backlog gets cleared out. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When will the backlog be cleared out. This discussion seems to be in favor of the move, but it's been quite a while and no one's moved it? Emperor001 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wilhelm II/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs better referencing plange 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)