Talk:Johann van Beethoven

Name

"Johan van Beethoven" triggers only one hit in Google scholar and that one isn't in English. It triggers three hits in Google books, two are in French and the other isn't in English, either. "Johann van Beethoven", by contrast, has 39 hits in Google scholar, thirty being in English. It also triggers 300 hits in Google books, many or most of which are in English. I could not find any other names. Sciurinæ 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below. Actually, User:Matthead moved the page a couple of days ago, presumably based on the discussion here. I'm closing the discussion and delisting the request at WP:RM, as the question appears to be resolved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Johan van Beethoven → Johann van Beethoven — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) —Sciurinæ 17:35, 24 September 2007 (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.

• Support. Obvious. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obviously, "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)" does not apply here. Last time I checked the English form of Dutch Johan, was John, not Johann. (a German variant) this man was a Dutchman, many sources indicate he was born there before he and his parents moved to Bonn. In later life he often visited the Netherlands, for example Dutch fairs. The fact that he has (Dutch) family relations in the Netherlands going back to the 1500s seals the deal.Rex 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Sciurinæ 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Guidelines tend to muddie things, let's ignore them. Evidence above would certainly suggest that Johann is by far the more oft used name, in English and otherwise. Someguy1221 17:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom (300 to 3?) and Someguy. This shouldn't be an issue. R. Baley 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support WP:COMMONNAME looking at the multitude of references for "Johann" and the lack of references for "Johan" and the fact that even the Dutch wiki lists him has Johann (instead of Johan). 84.145.195.64 16:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• CommentI have reinserted my comment that User:Rex Germanus had removed claiming. "A: Not allowed to vote B Dutch wikipedia is not a source, nor does it list him as Johann, but Johan". I'm trying hard to assume good faith here, so I strongly suggest you consult wikipedia policies regarding the removal of other peoples comments, Rex. 84.145.195.64 16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had been clear. Let me repeat it once more in even simpler English. You are an Anonymous IP adress. Not a registered User. You hence have no right to vote for validity reasons. This is a vote. Rex 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me the policy. Otherwise I cannot see this as anything but a personal attack. 84.145.195.64 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs are not allowed to vote, nor are extremly newly registered editors with very few edits. It's because it would mean that if you went to an internet café or library (where every computer has another IP) you might be able multiple times. The same goes for creating multiple accounts (WP:SOCK) it's a rule go with it or logg in/create an account. (WP:ACCOUNT)Rex 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already told you, this is not a vote. Still, as you persist to remove and insult my comments ("false vote") I had no choice but to post a notice on WP:ANI 84.145.195.64 17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP editors are absolutely welcome to voice their opinions in these discussions. Move discussions are not votes. Move discussions are better served by addressing the content than by trying to lawyer a good-faith contributor out of the discussion. The conversation isn't about who has what "rights" on the wiki; it's about Beethoven's first name.

On that subject, the Dutch article was moved on September 23 to the "Johan" title; see the page history. Regardless, our convention is to follow the majority of reliable English language sources, so it's not clear that Dutch usage is a major factor in our decision here. Our aim in choosing a title is to reflect scholarship on Beethoven in English, per our naming conventions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Dutch article, it of course had been created as "Johann" and edited by several editors before it was recently moved, by a user who did not bother to edit the content accordingly - which is a habit also Rex Germanus has, I have to say. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Reverted twice [1] [2] the moves [3] of Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) and added sources for his ancestry. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: this is not a !vote but a discussion to gauge consensus. Anon editors have exactly the same rights as a registered user. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ow, I'm shaking. A Vote, wether concerning a pagemove-poll or arbcom elections is a vote. IPs cant make them. Well... they can obviously, they're not valid.Rex 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The decision about the validity of arguments in page moves or AfDs, is at the discretion of the closing admin. When I close AfDs or request to moves, I read the argument and never votecount. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true, of course, that when a discussion is beleaguered by the participation of multiple new accounts or anonymous editors supporting a given position, whence one might reasonably infer sockpuppetry, such that it is conceivable that the apparent consensus of a given discussion does not accurately reflect the views of the community at large, especially where it is plainly contrary to policy to which the community have acceded or does not purport to apply that policy, certain !votes may be disregarded, lest an insular consensus should run, because of disruption, contrary to the probable views of the broad community. There is no evidence of such disruptive sockpuppetry here, though, and a pronouncement that an anonymous editor is proscribed from participating in a discussion by virtue of his/her not being registered is plainly in error (there are, of course, exceptions, such as, as Rex notes, votes for the membership of the Arbitration Committee, but those do not apply here). Joe 18:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that IPs should be disqualified from voting on WP:RM probably qualifies as a perennial proposal, although it's not yet listed there. I doubt it would get a great deal of support, for exactly the reasons Jossi gives above. See also Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users for related discussion. Andrewa 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Father or Son?

The second and fourth sentences contradict themselves. 59.167.82.150 (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really: Johann's father and son were both called Ludwig van Beethoven: the Ludwig in the second sentence is his son, the famous composer, and the Ludwig (Lodewijk) in the fourth sentence is his father, the grandfather of the famous composer. M.J.E. (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was less clear back in September -- in fact, before I added Lodewijk to the opening sentence, someone had "corrected" this. Magic♪piano 16:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Flemish?

Historically, Mechelen never was part of Flanders. The article mentions Flemish several times, I feel this should rather be Brabant, or refer to the low countries Yet as am not an expert on the matter, I should like discussion before modifying the article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The name "Beethoven"

The article states that today no one bears the name "Beethoven". Does it mean that there are still descendants from this family with other names? --2.245.93.19 (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC) jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.98.5 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johann van Beethoven. 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/20071005173020/http://www.ping.be/~pin10181/beethoven.htm to http://www.ping.be/~pin10181/beethoven.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005173020/http://www.ping.be/~pin10181/beethoven.htm to http://www.ping.be/~pin10181/beethoven.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 23:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)