Talk:Johannes Ronge

He is my ancestor

• hi ,my name is Inna, Inna Ronge.honestly i would like to start this article about Johannes von Ronge,cause he is my grand grand father,or smth like that.so if somebody knows smth else about him? 13:11, 10 July 2006 User:217.18.159.81
• what do you mean, the article is already there? 12:59, 18 September 2006 User:81.137.96.165

German-American link

I think the German American link is interesting, but just confusing here and on Berthe's page since neither went to America that I know of. Once the link is listed is on some relevant German-American pages, I think it should just be deleted on the Ronges' pages. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Page name

I would agree with Angr that the page is more properly named Johannes (and BertheBertha) Ronge. This is Carl Schurz's usage and he was close to the family. Isfdog has undone that work, a backward step I think; though the starting of a page on BertheBertha certainly more than compensates. I have added a redirect for the talk page so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC) and 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article does use the wrong name for Johannes Ronge. (See: [1], [2], and [3], for example.) I'll correct it in the article, but it would be nice if someone could change the title. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your backup research. Sorry to see Bertha Ronge article got deleted due to copyright infringement. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this got undone, I'm contacting Bob Burkhardt to see about redoing it. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly a determined attempt to make this fellow into Johannes von Rönge, and a parallel attempt to make his wife into Bertha von Rönge. Bertha suffers from lesser notability and so it is difficult to find sources with a correct name. All the reliable sources I found call her husband Johannes Ronge. All these articles sources have been removed in the current version. This includes several two encyclopedia articles available in Wikisource. His brother-in-law Carl Schurz calls him Johannes Ronge when he writes about him. This remake effort even extends to fabrications in Wikisource. When I checked the sources for the Whittier and Rossetti poems there the last time I fixed this vandalism, they both called him Johannes Ronge, in one case this source was an original manuscript. It is good to see two new sources with the correct name have been introduced. I appreciate the attention the problem is getting. And the Bertha Ronge article seems to have been resurrected. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've merged the two articles here manually, if there are no objections I'll blank that page but for a note redirecting readers here (so as to preserve the history), and archive that page's talk here (so we'll have it all here). Messy, but I think that's the best I can come up with. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, the talk pages are linked already, so now changes there. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, I just did redirects. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed some problems with other pages and links. So both Ronges look good now. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hmm... It appears that parts of this article have been copied from Kevin J. Brehony, a professor at Roehampton University. Please try to rewrite the article. I really don't want to have to hack away at it... Otherwise, the move looks good! 71.139.142.128 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch, thanks for the head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut and Paste

• There has been a spate of cut and paste moves on these pages Johannes von Rönge, Johannes von Ronge, Johannes Ronge. I've protected the redirects for now and reported it at WP:REPAIR, to try to join up the attribution history.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• I have moved Johannes von Rönge to Johannes von Ronge/version 2 and Johannes Ronge to Johannes von Ronge/version 3. These 3 pages cannot be history-merged due to WP:Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything to merge?

Please note Anthony Appleyard comments above, because of the manic cut and pastes that have been going on, it is unable to to properly histmerge the two other pages. Would editors on this subject please check those histories to see if anything has been lost in the process. Thanks. I have left the other two (now redirect) pages that were originally part of the cut and paste war fully protected. To move to either of them a proper WP:RM will have to be agreed by consensus.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

Page moved to Johannes Ronge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Johannes von Ronge → Johannes von Rönge –

• Does his name correctly have an umlaut or not? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Appears no umlaut in most German sources I searched various references to his "Europa darf nicht kosakisch.."

Modern source = Jenseits der Nation--das vergessene Europa des 19. Jahrhunderts: Claude Conter - 2004 - "So kann europäische Identität sich in dem konkreten Europabild des christlichen Abendlandes widerspiegeln, wenn die rhetorisch ... Ähnlich wird argumentiert bei Johannes Ronge: Europa darf nicht kosakisch werde "

Contemporary source = Regierungs- und Intelligenzblatt für das Herzogtum Coburg has a clear enough listing for the "Europa darf nicht kosakisch.." Sendschreiben, without an umlaut. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Autobiography gives the name as "von Rönge", the change of name in german government records listed as an attemp to hide family ties to the Sypniewski family (the "von Rönge" branch of the sypniewski family includes Johannes' ancestor Friedrich Carl von Rönge) The family relationship is also clearly listed in the Golden Book of Polish Nobility. The family has a copy of the autobiography that can be studied on application, along with copies of the patents of nobility being available for a charge. Other copies of the autobiography are sure to exist in the UK. Interestingly, the autobiography was published in the Manchester, in English, and not in his native German. Since the man himself lists his name as "von Rönge", I would be inclined to go with that. Froebelfan (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Accordin to google books:

• "Johannes von Ronge" -Llc 0
• "Johannes von Rönge" -Llc 0

"Johannes Ronge" ? Takabeg (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Johannes Ronge is how the sources used in the article have it, so that is what we should use. Google shows usage of that form, here, note esp. the autobiography, here. Google scholar also shows that Johannes Ronge is appropriate, see here with no hits for von Rönge or von Ronge. I do not know what sources Froebelfan is using, I surely cannot verify what s/he is asserting. Unless some source can be presented, we should revert the article back again to Johannes Ronge. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please move back to Johannes Ronge. Froebelfan makes many emphatic statements, but has no verifiable sources to point to. The autobiography actually doesn't matter a whole lot on critical issues, since it is secondary sources that matter the most in Wikipedia, but even in the autobiography I have yet to see a page where this format of the name is used. And corresponding unsourced changes to Sypniewski that should be undone again if they have been redone, and unsourced changes to Wikisource. A look at Special:Contributions/Froebelfan shows a one-shot user not doing much besides throwing mud at this article. Well I hope I have covered all the bases. Please restore this article to "Johannes Ronge". Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored Bertha Ronge. Any steps taken to protect Johannes Ronge from vandalism should be taken for that article as well. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that no moves are in order. The Johannes Ronge, after removing the edit that changed it to a redirect, should be protected, and Bertha Ronge should be protected as well. It might be a good idea to protect the various redirects to these articles as well. Editors can then move any legitimate work they did to these pages. Sorry the histories are messed up, but they've been messed up for a long time. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The direct decendants of Johannes von Rönge currently reside in South Africa, and can be easily contacted for a copy of the family tree, and a copy of the patents of nobility, which I cant cite on the article, since the family have the copyright. Copies are available for a fee. I suggest that it is not I, but users with less topical knowlege that are mistaken. The copy of the autobiography above is an english translation of the fourth german edition of the original, which was first printed in english during his exile, not in german. I dont see how citing the golden book of polish nobility (a loose translation of the title) is unsourced, since it cites a known and respected work. It is a well known fact that german names into antiquity often have variant spellings, I have come across the family's name spelled as VON RVNGE (the variant used in the patents of nobility), VON ROENGE, VON RöNGE, VON RONGE, and even one case of VAN RONGE (apparently a political move to make the bearer sound Dutch instead of German post WW2) as well as some variants sans von. In the end what variant is used on wikipedia matters little, since it is not a reliable source anyway. Froebelfan (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Where have you come across any such variants specific to Johannes? What his descendants or relatives may or may not have done is not relevant to this discussion. If you want to support your claim, you need to produce some sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose to Johannes von Ronge and Johannes von Rönge. Support to Johannes Ronge. Takabeg (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity regarding consensus, I will request participants to state support and opposition to the various names, following Takabeg's lead. My !votes are:
Oppose to Johannes von Ronge and Johannes von Rönge. Support to Johannes Ronge. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Johannes Ronge. I also Support Bertha Ronge. Maybe after we vote on a name, we can vote on the content? As far as the content is concerned, I don't think the current page's content is very close. A rollback of version 3 to before the redirects is the best possibility I've seen. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Johannes Ronge. Oppose to Johannes von Ronge and Oppose Johannes von Rönge No opinion on Bertha. per Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 1889, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL). 1999, and German-lang only search on Google Books. Original family name "von Rönge" should add in article text, In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put this "original" family name in the article text as I have seen no verifiable reference for it. The only place I've seen it is a single reference with no background information on a German-American web page, and I don't think that's reliable. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what's been happening on these pages, but it seems clear from the above discussion that the title should be Johannes Ronge. I'm going to change the article accordingly - hopefully an admin will do what's necessary to move the page while retaining the useful history.--Kotniski (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but if you would, please hold off a bit. A small number of editors have been pushing von Ronge and von Rönge, and this has been going on a while. My hope is that we can get enough editors to strongly establish one way or another what the consensus is, so we can avoid having to go through this again. Anthony Appleyard's approach to the histories is, I think, the best we can do at this point, once we're done here I figure we can them to redo that. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to me, but I'm new to these pages, so I don't know the background. Looks to me, though, that there's no reason to "hold off" any more - we have broad consensus and clear arguments in support of changing the title, so if Anthony's got a solution to the histories problem, then I say do it. --Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's been extensive revisions and reversions, page creations after redirects (hence the history being mangled) and the page was locked recently to slow down the changes. My personal feeling is that there is consensus, but we're not in a rush. I also support Bob's suggestion that we use this as the starting point for moving forward, for what that's worth. Since Vegaswikian did not change his/her ruling on there being no consensus when he/she closed the discussion, but merely reopened the discussion following my request that they explain his/her decision, and also to give Froebelfan a chance to respond, I think it is only fair to let the discussion run a couple of days. But that's just my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, let the discussion stay open if you want, though 8 days would normally be considered long enough for a move request. And I agree that your linked version of the article looks much better than the present one. --Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input about which article is better. Yes, 7 days is enough, and it was open that long, then closed as no consensus and the, after I approached Vegaswikian, reopened and a tag placed at WP:RMN. I'm not familiar with WP:RM procedures, but at WP:AFD, if a discussion is reopened, it usually stays open another week to give everyone a chance to respond. But I won't object if anyone wants to proceed. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, time to move. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2011 (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.

Worms?

It's mentioned in the lead (which currently mentions very little else about his career) that he was a member of the parliament in Worms. This isn't referred to in the rest of the article at all. Anyone know what's going on there?--Kotniski (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(Generally speaking, in fact, I think the lead could be pretty well rewritten from scratch.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, have a go. I think the worms thing is a mistake. Ronge was elected to the German parliament in 1848 see this, but that Parliament was in Frankfurt. There have been "parliaments" in Worms, see Diet of Worms. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Consequently, I tried to improve the lead, based on information in the rest of the article (I know nothing about this gentleman personally). Any further improvements welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)