Talk:Act of Abjuration

Requested Move

I have some difficulty with the title of this article: "Oath of abjuration". First of all, I always thought that the common English expression used to refer tot the "Plakkaat of Verlating(h)e" was "Act (not oath) of Abjuration". It may well be that some refer to it as "Oath", but this may be a misunderstanding.

In the first place, as I discovered yesterday to my astonishment when I finally closely read the Act to its end, it turns out there is no "oath of abjuration" mentioned in it. The magistrates are relieved from their old oath, and required to take a new one, but there is no explicit "oath of abjuration." As a matter of fact such an oath may actually be alien to the Dutch system of jurisprudence then in operation. It seems to be more in accordance with English jurisprudence.

As a matter of fact, there turns out to be an *English* Oath of Abjuration, that English MPs were required to swear on taking office, to renounce the Jacobite Pretender, as required in the Act of Succession of 1701 (See e.g.[1]). The other oaths they had to take were the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy. In other words, by using this title for the article, we may be blocking the way for a "proper" article on that "Oath of Abjuration".

Meanwhile, the lack of "abjuration" in the Dutch Plakkaat does not mean we can't use the term "Act of Abjuration", of course, as this appears to be the historically established English common expression. My suggestion would therefore be to change the title in this sense, but I am loath to do this, as I don't want to mess up wikipedia's internal linkages. Could someone in Authority please help?--Ereunetes (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All four references use "Act of abjuration" (even the first one -- it gives the literal Dutch translation of that phrase as a subtitle). So the authorities are on your side, and so is the dictionary.

A rename makes sense to me. Wikipedia handles that by making the old name a referral, so cross-references from other articles still work although it is then considered good practice to clean those up to refer to the new name. Clicking on "what links here" produces those articles; there are about 40 of them which isn't a big deal.

If there's no objection I'll do the legwork in a couple of days. Paul Koning (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive: we don't give articles the name that they should have, but the name that they usually are called by. So it is not very important if the document really contains an oath; it is important what name is generally used. Here are some google counts:

	"plakkaat"	"act of abjuration"	"oath of abjuration"
Google (English pages)	1090 hits	2880 hits	4370 hits
Google Scholar	161 hits	61 hits	26 hits
Google Scholar (since 2000)	24 hits	14 hits	4 hits

So "oath" is more common in English, but the academic world prefers "act". (Many of the "plakkaat" hits are Dutch articles.) In my opinion, this means that there is no real preference for the location of the article in Wikipedia. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did the google search myself, but noted that many of the "oath" hits actually refer to the English Oath of Abjuration from the Act of Succession. So I still think "Act" would be better, if only to avoid a disambiguation problem if somebody decides to write an article about the "real" oath. Meanwhile, I don't really care one way or the other. If Paul wouldn't mind doing all the legwork I would be very grateful, however, because he probably has the technical knowledge I lack.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The other consideration is that Wikipedia prefers to follow authoritative sources. That's clearly true for the content; I would apply it to naming as well. If we do the rename, then "Oath of abjuration" will still work (as a redirect). If it is determined that "oath..." should instead be an article about the English one, then that too work; the redirect changes to an article, with a note at the top saying "This article is about... for the Dutch Act of Abjuration, see..." Paul Koning (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be all for the change then--Ereunetes (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, sources appear to confirm preference for "act". Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A complication might be, that "Act of Abjuration" already exists as a referral page. I contacted the editor of that page and got the following reply:

I'm sorry, you're mistaken: the original title of the article was "Oath of Abjuration", and it has never been at any other title. And I haven't touched the article since 2004 myself.

If you want to move the article, feel free to do so. As long as the article can be found using any of its names, I'm satisfied; the exact title of the page can be decided upon by people who know more about the subject than I do, and who care more about it. WP:RM describes how to move a page. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

which would indicate that there is a consensus about renaming the page. However, to make double sure, I am now following the "controversial move" instructions on WP:RM--Ereunetes (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To put it differently: I wonder if a simple move from "Oath of Abjuration" to "Act of Abjuration" is possible, as long as the current re-direct page "Act of Abjuration" exists? There surely would be a nameclash that has to be resolved first? I was thinking of a swap of the contents of both pages, but that would mess up the change logs.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right that one should never swap the contents of the pages; it messes up the changelogs and the watchlists. Always use the "move" link (at the top, next to "edit".

This can only be done (by ordinary users) if the target page does not exist, or is a redirect to the current page with no edit history. The history of "Act..." is only 1 edit long, and it's a redir to this page; that means that, yes, you can move this page to Act of Abjuration. Try it! (if you think there is consensus). -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think there is a consensus, but in the meantime I had put up the name change for consideration by Higher Authority, like I wrote above. So I'll await a reaction till at least Monday as a matter of courtesy. Thanks for the advice, anyway.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that the poor administrators of contested moves are struggling with a backlog. As this proposed move does not really appear to be contested, I am going to proceed with it now. I hope I am going to do it right. I'll first upgrade the text of the article and then move it. Finally I'll look at the articles that currently link to "Oath of Abjuration" and repair what needs repairing. I already repaired the (incorrect) links to "Oath of abjuration" (undercase a) so that is now an orphan page, which can be removed.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As promised, I have Done the Deed. Sorry for any inconveninece this may cause.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Act of Abjuration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406040703/http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp:80/~room4me/docs/abj_dut.htm to http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~room4me/docs/abj_dut.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)