Talk:Hohenstaufen

The map is wrong and should be changed

I came here because I expected the wrong map at the HRE page was based on something. And apparently it is based on the map posted here. What's wrong with it? 1) It shows TK in Prussia as part of HRE. It was not. 2) It shows Pomerelia (Eastern Pomerania, West Prussia) as part of HRE. It was not. It wasn't even a separate duchy of full rights. It was part of Kingdom of Poland in any case, and it is shown as outside of HRE. 3) Silesia is shown as part of HRE. It was not more so at this point than other parts of Poland. And it remained part of Kingdom of Poland until late into 14th century, when it was officially transfered to Bohemia. It is true that HRE intervened and forced returning Silesia to its previous ruler. But it didn't make Silesia more HRE-ish than rest of Poland, which was forced to acknowledge the emperor's overlodship at this point. So either all Poland should be part of HRE at this point, or none of it (apart from West Pomerania, which is a separate bit). 4) Lebusland (a small area on both sides of Oder river with Lebus / Lubusz being its capital) was not part of Brandenburg at this point. In fact, none of Neumark was. It only became part of Brandenburg in 13th century. In fact, the map shows the 14th century border I think. 5) The map shows absurd border of Silesia, where the border rightly includes the areas that were later incorporated back into Minor Poland... apart from the mountain areas, which, somehow, are shown as a Polish penisula. This bit was part of Silesia at this time. 6) The Polish southern border is shown as it was later on. I will not even comment on eastern border. 7) It shows Żuławy (Vistula delta) region as part of Prussia. It was not. Also, it didn't exist at this point. It was still mostly sea at this point. I see other mistakes, anachronisms etc. But I would have to check to confirm them. Please find a better map or just remove this one. Thank you. Heresson (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Holy Roman Empire#Please change the map.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

The black eagel is not the coat of arms of the dynasty! The dynasty used three lions (gold on black/ sometimes black on gold). Nowadays coat of arms of the federal state Baden-Württemberg!

Eagel? Eagle!.

Frederick I., duke of swabia (1079-1105), was not the first known member of the dynasty. His former name (before he became a duke) was "Frederick of Staufen", not "Frederick of Büren". Frederick of Büren was his father. He marriaged a very noble and rich lady ("Hildegard of Egisheim") from alsace, who was related to popes, but he died very young in 1053. The father of Frederick of Büren was another Frederick, count palatine of Swabia. The name of the dynasty was in medieval german (and so in modern german too) "staufer / of Staufen", not "of Hohenstaufen". The name "Hohenstaufen" was first used in the 19. century. For more information look at the german site of "Staufer". If there are any mistakes (of language) you must excuse me, because I'm german and learned english only at school.--86.56.122.96 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

They are called the Hohenstaufen in English. Almost always. Srnec (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical of this claim. See House of Windsor for what I regard as normal English usage. Hohenstaufen sounds like a German plural, and similar borrowings do occur in English (eg the Taliban) but it would be more likely that they'd be referred to as the Hohenstaufs, and even more likely as the House of Hohenstaufen. Where have you seen the shorter name used? Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is typical historiographical usage, see any English work on the German or Italian Middle Ages. I can't recall every seeing "House of Hohenstaufen" in print. It would be like "House of Plantagenet", which I also do not recall ever seeing. Some dynasties are not named that way in practice. There are some at Wikipedia who think that every dynasty needs to be named as the "House of X", but this simply doesn't conform to how these dynasties are usually described. I would prefer Hohenstaufen dynasty to the current title. I have never seen "Hohenstaufs". Srnec (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm surprised at that. Can you be specific on at least one of the works you've consulted? Note the three etexts I have provided below that do use the longer name.

Agree that Hohenstaufs in not used, I was using it above as part of an argument modus tollens. Your preference is noted, but is the fact that you haven't seen this phrase the only evidence you can present that others (except in Wikipedia of course where they obviously have) are not using it? And of course House of Plantagenet is exactly what that article is currently named. Still skeptical. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So, are you proposing a move to Hohenstaufen dynasty as a second choice, but still wanting Hohenstaufen as your first choice? Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, look at all the pages linking to the now disambiguation page Hohenstaufen to see what other Wikipedians apparently think "Hohenstaufen" actually refers to. Srnec (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a good test. That just means that these links need fixing (as many others do too), and may mean that someone has already done the others. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If this nomination were to succeed, it appears from the above discussion that House of Plantagenet will be next, and possibly many others. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

At JSTOR, only 23 articles mention the "house of Hohenstaufen" while "Hohenstaufen" is mentioned in some 1158 works. I don't argue that house of Hohenstaufen is nonexistent or that I've never seen it in print (only that I can't recall it, it's been rare enough). But the number of links to Hohenstaufen and how long the page remained there until moved recently (10 March 2007) to this title by an editor who made many similar moves to "House of ..." is evidence for typical usage. Other Wikipedians apparently think Hohenstaufen is the natural term for this dynasty. Look, too, at the interwikis. Even if we must use this title, we should redirect Hohenstaufen here and create Hohenstaufen (disambiguation). Srnec (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You now imply that you have access to JSTOR, but many of us don't. Merely counting the uses doesn't help if we can't see the context, I won't go into the details of why this is necessary unless you would like me to. Suggest you present some more easily verified evidence, as I have done below.

Previous discussions and moves are of course helpful, to avoid reinventing the wheel, but please provide links to them. That also saves time.

Interwikis have little relevance if any. We use English here.

Agree that a disambig seems a good idea. Agree that previous Wikipedia usage is evidence, but the whole idea of these discussions is to look beyond that, and see whether we can do better than we have in the past. Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

etexts

Some etexts that use the phrase House of Hohenstaufen:

• St. Thomas Aquinas by G. K. Chesterton.
• History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution by James MacCaffrey.
• Illuminated Manuscripts by John W. Bradley.

These are simply three of the first four hits on this Google search. All four say House of Hohenstaufen the first time they use the word Hohenstaufen. (I discarded the first as it didn't look particularly scholarly, and didn't continue as I thought three made the point.) Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

When I try the same thing with "Hohenstaufen dynasty", I get much more results. But I don't know what any of this really tells us. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The earlier search told us quite clearly that your inability to recall any occurrences at all of House of Hohenstaufen was not a good indication of English usage.

The hit counts tell us not a lot. You need to look at how they use the term. It would also be wise to look at a few more of the hits from the previous search.

If you're now considering proposing a move to Hohenstaufen dynasty, this does seem to favour it. I think you'd need to look a bit more widely to justify such a move, but it would have a lot more chance than going to just Hohenstaufen. Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask how much you know about the Hohenstaufen? I really don't even want to have this debate. I would rather somebody who actually knows a lot about the topic just come in and tell us what the best title is. I am no expert on the Hohenstaufen, I just know that I read a lot of medieval history and I cannot recall encountering the term "House of Hohenstaufen" before and that this article was at my preferred title for years before being recently moved by an editor who can only be said to have a bent towards making such moves (even when I can verify that their preferred "House of" usage is not encountered in the literature, as at Anscarids). See also this little discussion.

Your etexts are hardly good evidence of English usage, either. They are all either old, obscure, or only remotely about the Hohenstaufen. No internet sources alone could possibly be great evidence of typical usage: it would be too limited and slanted. What does the literature say? I have no good books on hand that would give us valuable indications of typical usage. I would have to visit a library. But my whole point in the above Google search was to show that performing the same search on a different term yields far more results. So much more, in fact, that unless almost all of them were garbage, my search shows that the "dynasty" term beats the "house" term. And I still maintain that the apparent preference of other editors at Wikipedia to just "Hohenstaufen" for the dynasty is evidence as to what usage they have encountered in their reading. From now on I'll just hope that other people who know this topic better than we chime in. Srnec (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. We have an official policy that can be summarised Comment on content, not on the contributor. Disagree that the etexts are not significant evidence. Andrewa (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Stijn Calle#Chateaudun has been archived to User talk:Stijn Calle/2007#Chateaudun. Agree it's relevant. Many good points made. Any in particular you'd like to raise here (ones that that weren't answered at the time please... no point reinventing the wheel)? Andrewa (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. But if you're accusing me of an "attack", I'd prefer you be blunt rather than sticking a piped WP link in there. I never attacked you. And I don't know what you mean by "Wikipedia doesn't work like that." Doesn't admit "expert" opinion? A move request should have been opened for the original move from Hohenstaufen, which I undid; but another editor moved it back to the current title and turned the preferred name into a disambig page. That I should have to debate to have a page moved to a title Wikipedians obviously prefer is annoying.

Can you explain why your etexts are relevant, since I gave you reasons they are not? Britannica uses "Hohenstaufen dynasty". Columbia uses just "Hohenstaufen". As does Encarta. Srnec (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the policy to which I referred you with that piped link? I'd prefer you did, and so would the many other Wikipedians who have put a lot of time and trouble into writing and agreeing to it. Otherwise there's little point in having it. It doesn't say what I think you're guessing it does. That's why I took the trouble to pipe the link for you, and also to quote the nutshell summary , which doesn't mention attack unlike the policy title.

Perhaps a move request should have been opened, I'm not sure either way, but it wasn't. I'm sorry you find some of what has followed annoying, but again that's the way Wikipedia works. If you'd like explanations of how Wikipedia works and why, I can refer you to policies, guidelines, procedures, previous discussions and so on. But unless you're going to read them, again there's not a lot of point. To rewrite them all here for you rather defeats the purpose of having a wiki.

Agree that the encyclopedia links are relevant, thank you. We will need to examine the editorial policies of these encyclopedias to see whether their naming conventions are similar to ours, or different. Depending on these policies, this evidence could count either way. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The etexts were originally provided in answer to your suggestion above to consult any English work on the German or Italian Middle Ages. I did, and presented the results. They confirmed my initial impression that we needed to look deeper. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if I've ever read that WP policy page, I just know I saw "WP:ATTACK". I'm sorry for not clicking the link. I did not even comment on the contributor, did I? I asked you a question, I suggested that I'd like other opinions (not just ours), and I may have commented on User:Stijn Calle's "bent" towards making certain moves, only to show that the fact that the page was moved is not evidence that the title to which it was moved was appropriate or had any wider support than that of the mover. Where did I go wrong? I wanted to know if you knew something about the Hohenstaufen I didn't—because your initial comment that "it would be more likely that they'd be referred to as the Hohenstaufs" struck me as odd—or if you were just speculating based on your familiarity with other dynasties, like the House of Windsor. How does that go out of line and require a lecture?

How was the question Can I just ask how much you know about the Hohenstaufen? anything to do with the content? Do you really think it complies with the policy to which I referred? The comment to which you refer (...it would be more likely...) is a comment on the English language, not on the subject area, and I make it simply as a native speaker.

It wasn't about content, but it wasn't a "comment on" a contributor, but a question to one. I do think it complies with policy. I wanted to know if you knew something I didn't and weren't sharing or if you were just guessing. What's wrong with that? I know your comment makes sense in light of what you knew about English and German, but it seemed to indicate that you didn't know much about the Hohenstaufen. If the Wikipedia policy precludes me from asking about a fellow user's areas of expertise, why does it allow userboxes that identify them?

Disagree that the question wasn't a comment in terms of the policy. I wasn't just guessing, and I think that comment is also counter to the policy. Yes, user infoboxes are helpful, as are user categories. Interrogating other editors to challenge the strength of their expertise is a different thing.

If you have relevant information about the (House of) Hohenstaufen (Dynasty), the thing to do is to provide it. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, can I ask why we have to review the editorial policies of other encyclopedias to ascertain the relevance of their nomenclature but your etexts (found by searching for "House of Hohenstaufen") are automatically relevant? And can I ask what kind of evidence you would need to be persuaded that "Hohenstaufen" is the more obvious title? And have you looked deeper than your etexts? If so, what have you found? Srnec (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedias in question will have article naming conventions, and their article names will follow these conventions. If these are significantly different to Wikipedia's naming conventions, then their choice of article names tells us little or nothing about the article names we should use under our own conventions. In order to know whether it tells us anything at all, we need to know what their conventions are.

The other evidence from the articles is of course their usage of the term in their text. But this is likely to be contaminated by their article naming policy. So while they're examples of English usage of course, they're not particularly good ones, and again the editorial policies tell us how good. And if these policies aren't available to us, maybe we're better to look at other texts.

Nothing is automatically relevant. I think we'd be better off without that sort of phrasing, it's good debating but poor research.

One of the tests of a good text is that it's widely read. Being written by significant authors and appearing high in the Google hit list are two good criteria for this IMO, hence my interest in Chesterton. But it's not the whole story of course. Nothing is. Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will of course present any evidence here that I find, you don't need to ask for it. But there is still nothing that justifies the move IMO, so getting more evidence isn't my top priority. I realise you still think the move is a good idea, despite your initial reason for it having collapsed in my opinion. It would be good to have other opinions. Andrewa (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that any of the etexts you cited is widely read? Not all of Chesterton is widely read, nor is he a significant author on medieval Germany/Italy. Why would appearing "high" on a Google hit list eight items long be significant (considering it was a search for the term in question)? Can I ask again, what evidence would justify the move? I would go to my university library, but it's closed for holidays until tomorrow, and before I look up high medieval Germany, I want to know what would convince you. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you think of as widely read and evidence. The function of the examples was to answer your argument that, because you couldn't remember ever seeing the current title used elsewhere, it shouldn't be used here either. I think they did that.

Are we achieving anything here? The onus of proof is on the proponents of a move. There's no case to answer. Let's move on.

What would convince me? Good question. I'm mainly looking for evidence that the proposed new name is a better match to WP:NC than the current one, so read that again and see if you can get the intention of the whole rather than sticking on particular words and phrases is my best advice if you do wish to continue. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note I have removed the requested move entry, as it is clear there is not a consensus between the (two) editors participating in this discussion. I have not cloesd the discussion, however, as does not seem to have ended. Should a consensus emerge between the two of you and anyone else who chooses to contribute, then the Requested Move can always been reinstated. Neıl ☎ 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I ask for a comment in order to determine whether the usage "House of Hohenstaufen" is typical or common for the dynasty, compared the simply "the Hohenstaufen (dynasty)". Also, to determine whether the dynasty is the preponderant referent intended by the word "Hohenstaufen" and if that title should thereby redirect here and a Hohenstaufen (disambiguation) page created if the current title is accepted as proper. This is in light of the failed move request of the above thread, in which only myself and one other editor participated. I do not believe evidence can be adequately gathered for this type of naming issue, so I am trying to gather the knowledge and experiences of other editors. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Preface: While I appreciate Andrewa's comment concerning JSTOR access and entirely agree that raw numbers are insufficient evidence to ascertain typical usage, I hope that I will be permitted to link to JSTOR articles. Links to articles marked with an asterisk allow those without a subscription to view the title and abstract, which I feel sufficiently emphasises the context.

Comment: It appears to me that in academic journals such as Gesta (Vol 26 No 1*) and The History Teacher (Vol 8, No 4*) Hohenstaufen is used in the title without prefix, though as an adjective. Furthermore, in examples such as Speculum (Vol 53, No 2, Page 338) and The English Historical Review Vol 69, No 273, Page 653, it is common for Hohenstaufen to be used alone in the text, even in the first instance, though once again, this appears to restricted to use as an adjective.

To illustrate the use of "Hohenstaufen" vs. "House of Hohenstaufen", consider the use of "House of Hohenstaufen" in academic journals, such as Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (New Ser, Vol 1*): "The Emperor Frederick II. of the House of Hohenstaufen". I would suggest than an equally apt name for this title would be: "The Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II". Since adjectives should not be used as an article name but rather redirect to the article⁽¹⁾, it seems to me that this title should either be kept at House of Hohenstaufen or renamed to Hohenstaufen dynasty. (Renaming to Hohenstaufen (dynasty) would go against the convention of a number of articles listed at Dynasty.)

"Hohenstaufen dynasty" has been used in a number of academic journals, including Speculum, instead of "House of Hohenstaufen". Given the interchangable nature of these two terms in academic circles, I can only suggest guidance by raw usage as indexed by JSTOR: "Hohenstaufen dynasty" (35) vs. "House of Hohenstaufen" (17).

I would therefore suggest that:

1. Hohenstaufen → Hohenstaufen (disambiguation)
2. House of Hohenstaufen → Hohenstaufen Dynasty
3. Hohenstaufen redirect to Hohenstaufen Dynasty, with a Hatnote to Hohenstaufen (disambiguation)

Cheers, --Lox (t,c) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure its usage is predominantly as an adjective? It is a German plural, like English "Tudors". But I think your solution is an improvement over the present situation and I would support it without further quibbling. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my previous assertion of usage being "restricted to [that of] an adjective" could be considered inaccurate, though I do feel that it would be fair to suggest that predominant usage is as an adjective. Given also that Tudors redirects to Tudor dynasty, I still stand by my initial suggestions --Lox (t,c) 11:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs references!

The article is in pretty good shape, but it desperately needs referencing from WP:RS - with a lot more references, I'd have thought it's worth going for WP:GA. FlagSteward (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

House of Hohenstaufen → Hohenstaufen – The term "House of Hohenstaufen" is relatively rare. See this ngram. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Per nom. Reigen (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And German wiki would be content with just Staufer. Reigen (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • There is an argument to be made that it's a better name than Hohenstaufen, which is completely anachronistic. de Sthouf and Stoffensis are contemporary, albeit rare. But it hasn't caught on in English nearly as much as in German. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hohenstaufen would be fine. I'm just saying that Germans would dispense with the "House of" part. Reigen (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment or we could just move Hohenstaufen (disambiguation) to Hohenstaufen -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Name, meaning

Hi! Not that it is very important, but in an early 19th century source: Here page55 they suggest another origin of the name. All the best Wikirictor 18:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)