Talk:William the Silent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other illustrations

I found the and scanned the public domain image in a 19th century book that was previously illustrated the article. As it has since been removed and orphaned, I'll link to it here in case anyone ever has any use for another image of William I of Orange. Image:WilliamSilent.jpg. -- Infrogmation 01:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A little something Holland doesn't like to read

I agree, this is not pleasant to encounter, certainly not in a featured article. A text that, even me, I must admit to be "perfect". Dutch proud has done its work.

About the following, in Holland they allege it to be Flemish Interest propaganda or gossip - but the question stays whether William I of Orange will ever be able to rest in peace. Although the Netherlands frenetically try to usurp William I of Orange's legacy as only being their own, in Flanders (Belgium) he still enjoys some popularity too and Belgium's main party, the right-wing Vlaams Belang, is objectively spoken the present day executor of William I of Orange?s legacy and this in the region the prince once principally lived in. But this is perhaps also the reason why the Belgian establishment tries to ban, in fact murder, this party - [1] [2] Indeed there is nothing new under the sun. In the party's November 15, 2004 manifesto, Vlaams Belang declares (excerpt):"The party will encourage Flanders to cooperate as closely as possible with the Netherlands and with Southern Flanders (the Dutch-speaking municipalities in the North of France)." [3]

Johan

Flanders 11/2004

Hi Johan, I'm one of the Dutchmen who removed that text from the page. Here is why: The texts that you inserted were more about Vlaams Belang than about William of Orange. A discussion of the role of William of Orange in the VB would be more appropriate in the Vlaams Belang article, if he is that important for the party as a symbol. In fact, our Vlaams Blok and Vlaams Belang articles don't even mention him, and the three pages you refer to here don't mention him either. So I didn't remove your texts because I didn't like them; I removed them because I did not think they were relevant for the subject of William of Orange, and because they were not neutral: "Vlaams Belang is objectively spoken the present day executor of William I of Orange's legacy", for example. That sounds like the opinion of the Vlaams Belang itself, not that of an objective outsider!

If you add the importance of his ideas for Vlaams Belang to our Vlaams Belang or Vlaams Blok article, I think you could argue for a neutral one line reference in the "Legacy" paragraph here. Something like: "Several right-wing parties in the Netherlands and Flanders, in particular the Vlaams Belang, claim to be influenced by the ideas of William of Orange on the reunification of Flanders and the Netherlands." Eugene van der Pijll 10:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear friend from Holland,

I suppose it to be even worse than you imagine. In their former party program they even demanded the immediate and unconditional reunification of Flanders and the Netherlands. But now that they are on the brink of power, they have become more “realistic” in their phrasing.

As their present ideologue Gerolf Annemans found it worth to conserve, although under a more moderate form, this proves that the spirit of William is not dead.

By the way, I am no Vlaams Belangist, only an Orangist.

With friendly greetings,

Johan

Flanders

REFERENCES:

1) http://www.standaard.be/nieuws/binnenland/index.asp?articleID=GFVA1SF9

Article out of Flemish quality newspaper de Standaard. Title: “Vlaams Blok ruilt ,,Grondbeginselen voor lichtere ,,Beginselverklaring”

Excerpt:

Wat wordt behouden?

Het Vlaams Blok blijft een rechtse, nationalistische partij.

De culturele identiteit en de volksgemeenschap moeten de organisatie van het staatsbestuur bepalen. De staat dient de belangen van het volk, niet omgekeerd. De partij beschouwt zich als de ,,partijpolitieke tolk van de Vlaamse beweging zoals die historisch is gegroeid.

De partij noemt zich rechts omdat ze de maakbaarheid van de mens, een typisch linkse visie, afwijst. ,,Tradities, waarden en normen moeten worden gerespecteerd, meldt de Beginselverklaring.

Het streven naar Vlaamse onafhankelijkheid.

De Grondbeginselen gingen zelfs uit van de ,,verovering van Brussel en andere ,,door Wallonië bezette gebieden.

Pleidooi voor samenwerking met Nederland.

De Grondbeginselen pleitten nog voor een federaal verband met Nederland en Frans-Vlaanderen. De Beginselverklaring houdt het bij een ,,bijzondere aandacht.

2) The official Vlaams Belang (former Vlaams Blok) text.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/54/

excerpt:

2. The Netherlands and the Dutch Language.

Language is a constitutive element of a people’s cultural identity. The Vlaams Belang defends the interests of the Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary, particularly along the linguistic border and in the international institutions. The party will encourage Flanders to cooperate as closely as possible with the Netherlands and with Southern Flanders (the Dutch-speaking municipalities in the North of France).

Dear Johan,

I am Belgian too and I also support the “Groot-Nederlandse gedachte”, but William the Silent (and his descendants up to King William II) could hardly speak Dutch. Moreover 3 of his 4 wives were foreigners. More still, William of Orange did not unite the Low Countries, but rather caused the first secession, the second one being the “Belgian” revolution of 1830-1832.

William I of Orange/William I, Prince of Orange

See also previous article naming discussion in #William I? section above

The start of the present section is an abbreviated version of what can be found on talk:William of Orange

[...] let me note that beyond the fact of provinces getting elevated and numbers repeating, there's also the issue that a title like "Prince of Orange" may be considered more like a noble title than it is like a monarchical one. Thus, just as we have John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough we have William I, Prince of Orange. I will add that before we created the naming policy on sub-king monarchs, there was simply no policy at all, and articles were just put willy nilly wherever the article creator felt like, with no consistency at all. The change proposed did not meet with any notable opposition when I suggested it on the naming policy talk page, and without it, we are back to not having any policy on these people at all. john k 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes it is good to have no policy. I am not sure whether for that class of sub-monarchs, though. For me, THE question between two persons named William I of Orange would be interesting to solve. Do we need to put a brief disclaimer to the start of William the Silent's article that warns against confusing him with a medieval Frenchman who has (at least afaik) not an own article. ??? Or do we move him to William I of Orange-Nassau or as the current NC apparently requires, William I, Prince of Orange, Count of Nassau ??? Arrigo 15:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that is an important point you are raising there. After the war of independence with Spain the Netherlands became a republic and not a monarchy. However for most of the republics life the Oranges behaved as if they were monarchs. The office of Stadholder even becoming hereditary for some time. So even if the title Prince of Orange was not monarchical, in practice it meant the same thing (a bit like the Roman Emperors not being called kings though for all practical purposes they were). For the rest your example doesn't hold very well since it would have to be John 1, Duke of Marlborough. William 1 of Orange is the first king of the Netherlands were of Orange isn't so much a title as a family name (like Charles II Stuart, king of England) Chardon 15:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is also the sort of problem that readers may confuse William the silent with the 1st king. Hmmm. Arrigo 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is very similar to the "first Roman Emperor" problem (if not acquainted, see Roman Emperor#The first Roman Emperor): William the Silent is pretty much considered the "founder" of the Royal dynasty, only very much later leading to the first official "Monarch" in The Netherlands (and then only by accident, because the French invaded and put a king on the throne - after the "Orange-Nassau" heirs had contributed to eliminating Napoleon, they kept the royal title). This all very much coincides with Julius Caesar being the founder of the Roman Imperial monarchy, and historians are still discussing on whether he, or his successor, or the successor of his successor, or only the nth generation after that was really what we call today an "emperor". There appears to be the most scholar consensus about Augustus being the first emperor, but then still at which date he turned into emperor is object of further futile (or not futile!) discussions among historians. Thanks to Napoleon for The Netherlands the picture is clearer, who was the first king (with, not surprisingly, discussions whether the date Napoleon put a king on the throne qualifies as start of the monarchy or not)

The point is: Wikipedia should not take sides in these issues, and certainly not by means of the title of article pages: in the content of such articles there is room enough to give a NPOV approach of these issues, that is: explain the several approaches by scholars. For articles relating to Imperial Rome some sort of an equilibrium developed, those collaborating on that equilibrium know it needs additional support every once and a while, so that it wouldn't tilt to one of the extremes.

Part of the equilibrium is not naming anything that looks like a monarchical title or office in the pages for these Roman civilians that might or might not be monarchs. Besides: one wouldn't know which one to choose from: Augustus, princeps, or Augustus, pontifex maximus, or... just wouldn't work (and then I didn't speak yet of all the possible combinations). For Pharaohs it would be even greater mess to apply J.K.'s new guideline, while for some it would be Tutankhamun without anything behind it, and then suddenly from the moment they were conquered by Rome that would turn into Ptolemy XXXXX, pharaoh of Egypt or would that need to be Ptolemy XXXXX, king of Egypt, or Ptolemy XXXXX, vassal, or weren't they already vassals under the Greeks and the Persians before that, and we're gone again for an endless dispute (not to mention what Cleopatra yes or no would need to get behind her name).

So despite the effort that already went into it, I consider J.K.'s new experimental guideline unworkable:

1. It tried to solve a problem that couldn't be solved in this way;
2. It contradicts general wikipedia guidelines about the naming of articles.

A minor similar thing was when I thought Plato's writings needed "special rules" to keep the articles on these writings organised: till I found out existing guidelines, though put in very general terms, suffise. The "top down scheme" didn't work (not that I complained occupying myself with it: correct names were better applied, and the whole thing did get organised better).

The fact that initially there was "not much opposition" doesn't mean a thing: there is now, from all sides at the time when it is implemented and proves unworkable for near to 50% of the submonarchs that "could" be hit by it.

The simple rule is that one gives the simplest article name that is unambiguous and easily recognised:

1. "William" is not unambiguous;
2. "William of Orange" is not unambiguous;
3. "William the Silent" is absolutely unambiguous (indeed, there's absolutely no chance that with this article title he might be "confused with the first king") note that this triggers 19000 google hits (that is, excluding "wikipedia" in the search query and putting this entire name in quotes), I don't even need to check whether this is in general about our William the Silent.
4. "William I" is not unambiguous
5. "William I of Orange-Nassau" is not entirely unambiguous, because William I, the first king of the Netherlands by that name, was also of the house of "Orange-Nassau", so indeed an inadverted reader might confuse. But it is less unambiguous than "William I of Orange", while there was another prince-monarch under that name: in fact William the Silent was Prince William IX of Orange (see: Prince_of_Orange#as_sovereign_prince_of_Orange), restarting at number I for the combination of the houses of Orange and Nassau, that's when he became William I (...but still a monarch). Google-search triggers only 99 hits on this full name, on first sight about the half of them referring to the first "continental" king, so all-in-all problematic: the ambiguity problem with the first king seems to play harder than the ambiguity problem with the very first William that was "prince of Orange".
6. "William I of Orange" has the in practice less severe ambiguity problem as mentioned in the previous, but this name has the advantage of being "short". Also it has the advantage of being completely correct according to "naming policy", since he was prince in the meaning of monarch, not in the meaning of "other royal", like Rainier III of Monaco was also a prince-monarch. See prince article. See naming policy guideline. the fact that this was wrongly applied for the articles on the sovereign monarchs of Monaco, does not justify to apply it wrongly elsewhere. Google search on this version of the name: over 6000 hits if not excluding wikipedia; 600 hits if excluding wikipedia, in this last case on first sight more than three quarters of them for William the Silent. All in all rather problematic while wikipedia seems to be making reality here, which is some sort of "publishing of original research results".
7. "William I, prince of Orange" still ambiguity problems as with the previous two; plus, a bit against general wikipedia rules (overriden by "other royals" naming rule, not applicable to William the Silent), there's an unneccessary and thus redundant komma in the article title. If "prince of Orange" is to be considered as a kind of "disambiguator", then it should be between brackets, and not after a komma. And then there are too many disambiguator terms: "prince" is likewise redundant. this expression, when between quotes, triggers about 600 Google-hits, so comparatively it is also not a very high scoring search term. Further if "wikipedia" hits are disabled, the result lowers to about 500... this means a large part of the non-standard naming happens only in wikipedia! further it is a wrong application of the naming convention, while William was a prince-monarch, not a prince-other-royal
8. "William IX of Orange", though sort of correct (all in all the most correct according to present naming conventions), plain and utter sillines. Nobody called the guy by that name.
9. "William I, stadtholder": sort of unambiguous, even less generally recognised than the previous (totally uncommon: 20 Google hits, rather accidental mid-sentence quotes), and, my subjective appreciation, looks absurd.
10. "William I, stadtholder of Holland", keeps adding complexity, absurdity, uncommonness, and reason for discussion (was "prince" of a city in the south of France, or "stadtholder" of something that started to look like a real country, his most import title? I think this could lead to several more months of useless discussion).
11. And then we could still further add redundancy and complexity, by summing up all the minor places this, and other Williams, were stadtholder, duke, count, baron, etc... of.

If the title reflects what a person is known by the most: fine, but cut it away if it adds redundant complexity for recognising whom you're talking about.

Indeed wikipedia is not a list of royalty (gee, I should add that to the "what wikipedia is not" page), too many of you, from whatever faction, have been blinded by that. After several months of discussion we know the two are not compatible. Either you go to specialised "who's who in nobility" lists outside wikipedia, or you try to adapt.

Nonetheless, wikipedia has many, many rooms and possibilities: categories, to name one. and lists is yet another, and very appropriate for listing dynastic successions. Or family trees, with a lay-out that makes easy to follow the dynastic line, if you don't know where they are I can point you to some that are really nicely wrought. Another, that is probably still one of the most appropriate for making clear lines in succession of nobility are "navigational templates". Yes, they're a bit more work than snatching article titles, but really much more rewarding.

And, I would revert the name of William the Silent's article page back to what I think it was a very, very, long time ago: "William the Silent", or as only second solution I think only more or less reasonable, "William I of Orange" (but if voting, on second thought I would be voting against this: all in all too problematic).

--Francis Schonken 18:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

So, to be fair, I look a bit against the wall of work this might need, but I'll take the first steps in trying to get this one straight. Even if this needs a voting procedure. --Francis Schonken 20:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

William I, Prince of Orange → William the Silent – Present name not OK with naming conventions: the "other royals" rule was applied instead of the "monarch" rule; The most obvious alternative, correct to naming policies ("William I of Orange") problematic for several reasons; for detailed discussion of other alternatives and list of advantages/disadvantages of the several name choices, see #William_I_of_Orange.2FWilliam_I.2C_Prince_of_Orange section above - Francis Schonken 21:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• justification adjusted: "William I, Prince of Orange" not OK with naming conventions for other reasons, see relevant discussion below and other talk pages. --Francis Schonken 12:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Important

Please add vote to the vote count table also. Votes can be changed as long as voting procedure is running. Some opinions expressed below have become ambiguous ("would agree with move if it were in accordance with the rules", then it appears that the move is in accordance with the rules... etc).

Note that:

• 1-0 means: I support the proposed move
• 0-1 means: I oppose the proposed move
• 1-1 means: both move and no-move options are OK with me
• 0-0 means: I don't vote (this is e.g. a way to express that you think this shouldn't be handled by a voting procedure)

Please (at least) read and try to understand the discussions below before adding your vote (also) to this table

Move   NoMove
 1       0        Francis Schonken 12:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 1       0        Errabee 18:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 0       1        john k 18:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 1       0        Septentrionalis 20:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)  
 0       1        StanZegel 20:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 0       1        Philip Baird Shearer 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 1       0        MartijnL 09:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)  
 1       0        Lankhorst 12:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 
 1       0        ProfSjors 17:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 1       0        BlankVerse ∅ 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 1       0        Känsterle 19:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 1       0        Dejvid 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 1       0        Effeietsanders 12:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
---     ---
10       3        SUM (15:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

Vote results

Percentage calculation (10 days after start of vote):

• Move: 10 votes out of 13 = 77% > 60%, so there seems no impediment to operate the move to William the Silent.

Calculation provided by Francis Schonken 15:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. I have decided to move this to William the Silent, even though I have some significant misgivings about how this vote was conducted. My count based on the above and comments below is 10-4, but if were to discount all the users whom Francis recruited from nl.wikipedia by leaving messages on their talk pages there, the count would be 4-4. However, none of those accounts on en seem to have been created solely for the purpose of this vote, and two actually have fairly substantial edit histories here. Given this, I have decided to allow their opinions to tip the balance towards moving, though I would regard this result as a very marginal consensus given these circumstances. I would strongly caution Francis against rounding up his friends in order to sway polls in the future, as I am unlikely to give much credence to such votes if I see this repeated. Dragons flight 06:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

A clarification. It appears that messages were left on one NL talk page [4] and the NL village pump [5]. It is the later which I regard as wholly inappropriate and seems to have resulted in the number of rare participants from NL. Dragons flight 19:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is far from an impartial analysis of the vote, I commented Dragons Flight's self-invented POV and false accusations at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_10 --Francis Schonken 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I have now replied at that page. Dragons flight 16:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

Pre-discussion:

• Not that I am yet ready to vote, but I want to cite here Exception number 2 of Naming Conventions regarding Monarchicals: "If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion." To fulfill the criteria set by the cited rule, people need to show that a monarch (submonarch) is best known by a cognomen, "the Silent". Arrigo 01:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Which was done above. Indeed, beyond doubt known by the cognomen "the Silent". The methods I used above for showing this was indeed the case are further discussed at talk page of "naming conventions", so that discussion needn't be repeated here. Seems J.K. was wrong in his assertion below that rules needed to be adapted for "William the Silent" as page name. --Francis Schonken 08:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Nearly forgot: I support the proposed move to the proposed name (William the Silent) --Francis Schonken 21:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• The "other royals" rule is not being applied. What is being applies is rule number 5 of monarchical titles: "European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g. Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg"." William I, Prince of Orange fits this pattern exactly. I oppose this move. john k 21:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, hadn't seen that one. Confirms my argument that the rule is too complex to be workable. Doesn't change my vote: what you proposed is too far from whatever William the Silent is most often named, and remains too ambiguous. --Francis Schonken 21:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't expect you would change your vote, and William the Silent would, I think, be an acceptable title to the article (much better than William I of Orange). But I think there is value to having the rules. The point of the rules isn't for people who create articles, necessarily. It is so that those of us who are concerned with titles can then move them to the appropriate titles with ease and without serious conflict as necessary. In wikipedia, everybody shouldn't have to know everything, and it's ridiculous to expect everybody who might create an article on a royal to be fully familiar with a very complex naming convention system. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a complex naming convention, just that those of us who are familiar with it shouldn't be obnoxious when people create articles at the wrong title. john k 22:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Change of rule proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Addition_proposed --Francis Schonken 22:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Propose J.K. changes his vote, the rules needen't be adapted after all (as shown on naming conventions talk page), he just ignored them, and from what I read he favours "William the Silent" if it's conforming the rules. So, please show some coherence. --Francis Schonken 08:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Francis, I have no interest in telling you what you "should" support based on comments you have made, and I would appreciate it if you do not tell me how I "should" vote. john k 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support Septentrionalis 22:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• The hard-fought-for disambiguation page calls him William I of Orange-Nassau, which I think is appropriate, with a redirect from William the Silent. I'd support a renaming to that, but oppose moving the article to William the Silent. --StanZegel 04:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fake argument: "hard-fought-for" does not apply to the content of the disambig (now at William of Orange), and William the Silent is first named as "William the Silent" in the header section of that page, where that version of the name is as long as I can remember. Further "William I of Orange-Nassau" has major disambiguation problems: for instance this English page operated by the Foreign Office of the Netherlands (as "official" as one could get) says: "[...] When the Netherlands became a kingdom in 1813, William I of Orange-Nassau, the country's first king [...]" --Francis Schonken 08:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose moving the article to William the Silent. Let's keep these namings systematic, it helps. We do not need quirks in this naming either. Arrigo 10:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarifications

As the Dutch site uses "nl:Prins Willem I van Oranje-Nassau" as the primary title for William the Silent, and the page name nl:Willem I der Nederlanden, which are similar to William I, Prince of Orange and William I of the Netherlands I do not understand why Francis is confused by the names. Philip Baird Shearer

1. Dutch wikipedia uses nl:Willem van Oranje as primary title for William the Silent, I don't know where your confusion comes from? "Prins Willem I van Oranje-Nassau" is a redirect, about someone having "Prince" as highest title, so this page could never be King William I. The Prins/Prince title, put before the name, is not according to Dutch Wikipedia's page naming policy, so it can only be a redirect. Note that in Dutch there is no confusion about "Willem van Oranje": in Dutch "Willem van Oranje" is exclusively used in the meaning of "William the Silent". So I don't think looking to Dutch wikipedia will help us much.
2. The website I used as reference re. William I of Orange-Nassau is A WEBSITE BY THE DUTCH GOVERNEMENT, the website of their Foreign Office, IT IS IN ENGLISH, you can read it. And it uses William I of Orange-Nassau (not preceded by "prince" or "king") in the meaning of the king, which is clear through the context.
3. I don't know what's wrong with you guys, can't you just click a link and read what you see? Even if you don't understand a word of Dutch you could've seen that the "Prins" link was a redirect, and not the primary title. --Francis Schonken 17:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

(after editing conflict) I think your eyesight is not 20/20. The nl:Prins Willem I van Oranje-Nassau is a redirect to nl:Willem van Oranje, which is equivalent for us Dutch to nl:Willem de Zwijger. Since in England William of Orange seems to refer to William III and therefore this alternative is unavailable, William the Silent (literally translated from Willem de Zwijger) would be the most appropriate title. Errabee 16:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No my eyesight is ok, which is why I used the phrase "primary title" for the former (meaning the page starts Prins Willem I van Oranje-Nassau) and the "page name" for the second one :-) Philip Baird Shearer 17:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Francis and others are saying that "William I, Prince of Orange" may be confused with Guillaume I des Baux, a Prince of Orange in the 12th and 13th centuries. Given the considerably lower familiarity of that "William I, Prince of Orange," I think that as soon as we get an article on this other fellow, this could easily be solved by a disambiguation notice at the top of the page. William the Silent is just as entitled to being William I as Edward I of England is entitled to his ordinal. I would strongly oppose "Prince of Orange-Nassau," because this is not a real title. He was Prince of Orange, and a Count of Nassau, but he was not Prince of Orange-Nassau (although the post-1702 line of Nassau-Orange/Orange-Nassau did hold this title). john k 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there was no confusion implied in this sense. Instead of talking about a possible article nobody was actually talking about or confusing with, here's a suggestion: maybe start it.

No, wikipedia is not about giving "honours" to kings and princes long dead by giving them a number. So nobody's "entitled" to get an ordinal. Wikipedia uses numbers to disambiguate, and as near as possible to common practice. As for William the Silent, practice is maybe somewhat divided, but I think the most common practice is without the number. --Francis Schonken 19:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If he is being distinguished from other princes of Orange, he is certainly called William I. His grandson is certainly William II (and never, ever, William X), and his great-grandson is not just William III of England, but also William III as Prince of Orange. Calling him William I should be completely uncontroversial, unless we are worried about confusing him with the obscure earlier William I, which you now say you are not concerned about. As to honours to kings, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was merely saying that, although William the Silent may technically be "William IX," in that he was the ninth William to be prince of Orange (apparently - still not sure who William VIII was), he is generally called "William I," and the fact that there was another William I a long time before does not disqualify him from being William I, any more than the existence of Edward the Confessor, et al, disqualifies Edward I from being Edward I. john k 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Section to be moved to talk:William of Orange

that is, if everyone agrees of course! --Francis Schonken 18:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is for John to decide, and only to him (why would he need anyone's permission to write his this comment to another talkpage??). The only reservation would be if its move causes confusion to readers in thought threads here, but that seemingly is not the case regarding this. HOwever, it is good that you Francis have now learned that it is not for you to remove or move another's comment, for which feat I congratulate and commend you. Arrigo 00:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, our Prince of Orange article does not seem to list nine princes of Orange named William. It lists William I (r.1182-1218), William VII (r.1463-1475), and our William, who is William IX (r.1544-1584). This page lists differently - "William I of Baux" on our list now is William IV. He has successors William V and William VI, not listed on our table at all, who reign concurrently with Raymond I, whom we do list. William VII is the same as on our list, and there is stillno William VIII...Williams I, II, and III are from an earlier dynasty that precedes the Baux'. john k 16:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Alleged messiness

IMHO this combination of indicators for a consensus and discussion in the same section, makes this WP:RM a mess. I think Francis's just makes the problem worse. Can we not use the usual WP:VFD and WP:RM support and 'oppose with a seperate discussion section? Philip Baird Shearer 16:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

1. The table shouldn't have problems for casting your vote, a more complex version of it was used by several when we voted for William of Orange. No problem there, so why should it be a problem here? If you don't want to add your vote, and make a clear statement what your vote is and ask someone to add your vote to the table, there'll be no problem either!
2. If there's no clear vote, I think the sysop won't have much other possibility than reading all this. I wouldn't know how to interpret what someone means if he says "I'd favour "William the Silent" if it weren't against the rules, and that afterwards appears it was not at all against te rules. However you turn that, if you don't read the whole lot I don't know how that could become clear.
3. Anyway, you've got a separate section now, for additional questions and clarifications, not directly related to the vote. I titled it "clarifications" as you can see. --Francis Schonken 17:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the tabulation (which I transferred from above to the bottom) is all too unsuitable. Discussants should not face such obstacles when expressing their opinion. I predict that the table would have received votes from approximately only one user. 217.140.193.123 16:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

table moved up again, was no problem in a prior vote. Dear User:217.140.193.123, you canvote if you subscribe to wikipedia. But if not voting, don't mess with page lay-out etc... --Francis Schonken 17:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is much messiness above in the organization of the vote. Particularly the table of votes. This poll will in all probability be scrapped because of those. Arrigo 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

And many voters seem to be ones with very scarce and/or recent contribution history, coming from Dutch areas as well as the proposer, Francis himself. Somewhere there is a rule that usernames showing similar edit behavior are not counted as separate in polls. Check User:Errabee, User:MartijnL, User:Lankhorst, User:ProfSjors, possibly others. Arrigo 10:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC) PS. I would not ask whether Septentrionalis is a sockpuppet of Francis Schonken or not, as it is not terribly important.

Francis has proposed following vote tabulation

Moved back up - I use lay-out as provided by WP:RM page. --Francis Schonken 17:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

1661?

A date in this article (marriage) referred to 1661. This is posthumous, so I changed it to 1561. But this date is still too late to fit with other dates in the article. When did he first marry? Brutannica 20:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

And he's a city

Here's an interesting bit of trivia: there's a place in Iowa named after this king, called Orange City. My grandmother noted it when she saw the featured article today. --Al Fox 21:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not one of the other Williams of Oranges or the Dutch Royal Family in general? this one wasn't a king btw :) see William_of_Orange for a disambig --82.74.253.46 22:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oops; looks like I typed too much and read too little. I didn't take the time to figure out exactly what sort of nobility he really is. Still, I think it's him, because the disambiguation says "in the context of Dutch history, William [I of Orange] is most often meant", and this is a very Dutch city. (She did say specifically that it was named after William of Orange. And she is Dutch.) --Al Fox 22:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yup but we (the Dutch) have had this William I of Orange (the Stadtholder) (up to stadtholder William V) and King William I of the Netherlands (1772-1843), also a William of Orange (and afterwards king William II and III). So it still may be (one of) the other William of Orange(s) Arnoutf 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

University of Leiden

University of Leiden, the first university in the country. - It is not very clear which is the country - Holland/Netherlands/?. In this time The Netherlands included Louvain as well. May be "Northern Netherlands" or "nowadays Netehrelands" will be better? --Nk 10:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

William of Orange was only stadholder of Holland and Zeeland and not of Flanders. The current Netherlands did not yet exist. It was the first University within his territories, and within the rebel territories. Arnoutf 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Error text early years picture

An error text at the early years picture indicates that the image is NOT William of Orange but one of his sons. However the picture is given as William of Orange at: http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/mor/41orange.html So can someone provide a reference or clarification about the error text. Thanks Arnoutf 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say the image is NOT William of Orange? I can't find it. He obviously ís William by the way. Tom 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was added as a remark (only visible in Edit screen) with the Early years picture in the main article

(see) [ [Image:WilliamOfOrange1555.jpg|thumb|right|A picture of William of Orange in his years at the court in Brussels.] ] < !-- ERROR: The picture is of Prince Maurice Henry, a son of William "the silent". -- >

I do not believe the remark is right; it is William I, but would like to discuss / allow the editor to come up with evidence before removing it Arnoutf 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now, thanks. I'm pretty sure it can just be removed. Everywhere I've seen this picture it is described as William I, and I've never heard of his son 'Maurice Henry', who just sounds like an jumbled together version of Maurice and Frederick Henry. Tom 19:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas

Hi all, first of all I am pretty happy with the articles as it is now, so don't take me wrong. I think there are some options for improvement though. The article is now 32kb long, close to the maximum recommended 35 kb. Perhaps now is the time to go through a round of editing aimed at focussing content. Mainly the introduction seems a bit lengthy and may benefit from some editting. Also the (fairly recently) added issue table looks not very good yet (layout and many red links), we should carefully consider whether this information is necessary for this article; and whether the table is the best format for it. Arnoutf 12:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WIlliam the Silent

I have never read anywhere that William was called "the Silent" because he was a poor speaker. The most common story that i have heard is that the King of France one unwittingly revealed to William a catholic plot to impose an inquisition on the Netherlands, and William, rather than give himself away, said nothing, and allowed the king to keep talking, revealing more and more of the plan. I dont know if the story is true, but i have seen it in print several times, and i would say that it is the most common story of how he got his nickname. Another possible explanation is that the phrase "the silent" is/was mistranslated. Never have i heard that he was called "the silent" because he was a bad speaker.

You mean the King of Spain? 69.241.235.253 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He probably wasn't a bad speaker but the problem was (and why he is called 'the silent' in English and 'de zwijger' in Dutch which is a beautiful translation) because he couldn't speak Dutch! It is as simple as that. 212.64.56.124 (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the main article says. It isn't very likely, either; it's hard to imagine living in a country for half your life and not learning the language well enough to converse in it. Especially if you're a leading politician. But if you have a citation that supports your claim, by all means add it to the article. Paul Koning (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

william the silent

william the silent was not silent although he was a good listener.The name silent is probalby william the sly, often referred to by the people of his time. Please add this to the article and do the proper research about this name. source William father of the netherlands by gordon langley hall rand mcnally 1969

William remained silent when the Duke of Alva and Henry II were planning the persecution of Protestants. William was a proponent of religious freedom. His remaining silent wasn't a sign of cowardice but of his slyness.--84.26.109.69

Yes, I think the word sly was applied perjoratively in his lifetime by his Catholic enemies. It was more a case of being shrewd, rather than sly, as to open his mouth when his liege lord, Philip, spoke of destroying religious freedom in the Nederlands would have meant his head.

It is because he couldn't speak Dutch. 212.64.56.124 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd Sentence in Assassination section

The following sentence appears in the Assassination section, and clearly needs a bit of work:

After Philip II declared William an outlaw and promised, which Gérard found out in 1581, he decided to travel to the Netherlands and kill him.

Sadly, I don't know what Philip promised, or I would edit it myself. Does anyone else have any idea? Amnesty, perhaps?

Mmccalpin 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope much more mundane- money - 25000 golden coins (I forgot the currency); anyway a fortune in those times Arnoutf 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And the killer would be knighted by the King. In fact, the eldest son of Gerard was knighted

and received the 25,000 golden coins. --Robk 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Offspring titles

Recently the titles from Williams offspring were changed from the German (Graf - Gräfin) to the Dutch (Graaf-Gravin). To confuse matters I think at that time the titles at the Burgundian court would have been the French versions (Compte, Comptesse). For English Wikipedia I think we should however use the English titles (Count-Countess). Arnoutf 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Last words

Were they actually "Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, ayez pitié de moi et de ton pauvre peuple"? From a distant past I remember it running "Mon Dieu, ayez pitié de moi et de ce pauvre peuple" ("My God, have mercy on me and on this poor people", "Mijn God, heb medelijden met mij en met dit arme volk"). Moreover, the repetition of "my God" in this citation makes it sound oddly like Christ's words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (maybe not a coincidence?). Moreover, its form varies in internet sources, and the two non-scientific publications I have on the desk here both say something different (Kroniek van de mensheid: "Mon Dieu, ayez pitié de mon âme; mon Dieu, ayez pitié de ce pauvre peuple"; Twintig eeuwen geschiedenis van het Nederlandse volk: "Mon Dieu, aie pitié de moi et de ce pauvre peuple"). I was wondering whether this range of variation reflects different contemporary sources giving different citations, or if this is a simple case of misquoting. Not a matter of great importance perhaps, but I think the poor man's last words should at least be quoted correctly. Iblardi 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Israel (The Dutch republic 1998 paperback ed. p.216) quotes "Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, ayez pitié de moy et de ce pauvre peuple" which he quotes from the "Resolutien van de Staten van Holland" written between 1789-1814. I think this is the most autorative source (although it is written over 200 yrs after the fact).Arnoutf 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Could well be. But maybe the original source is indirect, saying something along the lines of "He called on God, asking, in French, for mercy both on himself and on the people whose interests he wanted to advance" - I don't know. Does P.C. Hooft say anything about it in his Nederlandsche Historiën? This would be a near-contemporary source. Iblardi 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated the quote to Israel's version and added ref. Iblardi 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: the other day I came across a biography by C.V. Wedgwood, William the Silent: William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, 1533-1584, which seems to be somewhat of a standard. It gives the longer version (Mon Dieu...âme, mon Dieu...peuple). The passage is not annotated. Iblardi 06:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Wedgwood biography is much older (1944) compared to Israel (1998); historical science has developed a lot in these fifty yrs (as I learned from a historian when I used Pieter Geyl (1932) as reference for the Dutch Revolt article. Mainy reverting to original sources and critically reviewing sources seems to have developed much since the mids 20th century. So I would prefer Israel for now Arnoutf 11:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it:

"'Ten desen daghe es geschiet de clachelycke moort van Zijne Excellentie, die tusschen den een ende twee uren na den noen es ghescoten met een pistolet gheladen met dry ballen, deur een genaempt Baltazar Geraert..... Ende heeft Zijne Excellentie in het vallen gheroepen: Mijn God, ontfermpt U mijnder ende Uwer ermen ghemeynte (Mon Dieu aiez pitié de mon âme, mon Dieu, aiez pitié de ce pouvre peuple)' - zo vertellen de notulen der Staten-Generaal van 10 Juli 1584 des Prinsen dood." (J.W. Berkelbach van der Sprenkel, De Vader des Vaderlands, Haarlem 1941, p. 29)

It's in the minutes of the States-General of 10 July 1584, the day of the murder. Berkelbach van der Sprenkel goes on to say that this text was repeated in communiqués that were sent around the country two days later. Iblardi 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On closer inspection (I was in a hurry the other day) the Dutch translation does not literally correspond with the French words. Translated back into French, they would actually run: "Mon Dieu, ayez pitié de moi et de ton pauvre peuple." Perhaps here we have the origin of the different traditions. Iblardi 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One questions, did you actually read the minutes of the States General; or do you derive your words from the secondary source (Berkelbach). As Israel (the more modern secondary source) refers to the same minutes, albeit it probably in another edition. Arnoutf 14:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, my source is the passage I cited above (my first sentence was a short résumé for those who don't read Dutch), and the comment "zo vertellen..." is the author's, not mine. However, I am pretty much convinced that the citation is correct, partly on the ground of the language that is used; pouvre, for instance, is an Old French form of pauvre (here). In addition, Motley's Dutch Republic (again an old one, printed 1894) cites a passage from the circulatory letter sent to the provinces on 12 July, which contains the same French phrase, but without the Dutch translation (pp. 894-895). (I must admit that I am not entirely sure of the part ce/ton peuple - I actually glanced through that book in an antiquarian bookstore earlier today. The two-sentence structure was definitely there, though.)

Of course, both sources could be wrong, but the fact that the quotes correspond with each other and are both embedded in the original (early modern) Dutch text makes it hard for me to doubt their authenticity. Iblardi 16:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, mijnder is a possessive adjective, which would mean the Dutch text would in French be closer to "Mon Dieu, ayez pitié de mon et de ton pauvre peuple" (My God, have mercy on my and your poor people). Aecis^Brievenbus 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comic strip

There's a popular Dutch comic strip about his life. Brutannica 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So???? (btw never heard of it and I am from the Netherlands)Arnoutf 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilles de Geus, maybe? Iblardi 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be my guess, but how popular that is, I think the series ended in the early 90's, and I am not even sure whether the volumes are still in press Arnoutf 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilles de Geus (excellent comic btw) is not about William of Orange, but about Gilles, a former highwayman who has joined Les Gueux. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but William features as Gilles' 'boss' and has a volume named after him.[6] Brutannica may be referring to that one. Iblardi 23:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he's a notable character in the comic, but he's not the main character, so I'm not sure this should be included. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if he were the main character a historical comic is not relevant for this article, just as little the Julius Caesar article needs talking about Asterix (which is a better known comic series compared to Gilles de Geus).Arnoutf 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Asterix series is much better known, and so is Caesar. However, given the state of history education in the Netherlands and the scarceness of Dutch historical figures in comics and popular culture in general, there might be some educational value in mentioning it. Iblardi 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For an English speaking audience? I think for that audience it would be merely a trivia. Arnoutf 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For an international public, including Dutch readers or people who read Dutch as a second language. I wouldn't put it in there myself, but I suppose the case could be argued for. Iblardi 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of that 'greatest dutchman' thing

The item about the "greatest dutchman" contest strikes me as quite non-notable -- WP:NOTE says "notability is not temporary". That TV stunt, if it was ever interesting, certainly isn't going to have any lasting significance. It would be worth getting rid of. Paul Koning 01:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the more so as the Dutch voting system was flawed (ie many votes that shifted from other historical figures ranked 3-5 were not counted as the networks systems could not cope). Arnoutf 09:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mascot?

Beatrice, Nebraska has based their mascot, the Orangemen, on him. Where in this article can I put this at? The wikipage for Beatrice, Nebraska mentions the orangemen, and I'm going to correctly identify that it is based on William of Orange. I'm a native, and I go to the highschool, so I know the story of our mascot well.... well except for WHY he is our mascot... lol, I just know who he is.

Bryse 06:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all please make sure you use the correct William of Orange for the Orangemen (there have been 8 of that name). The most famous ones are William I (this William in the 16th century); William III of Orange who maried to Mary II of England and became King of England; and King William I of the Netherlands (19th century) who commanded the heavy cavalry reserves at the battle of Waterloo. Personally I think the mascot is most likely related to William III, as that is the most famous William in the English speaking world, but I am not sure. So please figure that out.

Secondly, while the mascot story is relevant for Beatrice, Nebraska is not (or only as trivia) interesting in relation to this article. Therefore I would argue against adding it to this article; especially as there are more towns etc. that have such a relation to William. Arnoutf 12:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Small correction: it was still another William of Orange, who reigned 1840-1849 as King William the Second, not his father King William I, who commanded the Dutch/Belgian forces at the Battle of Waterloo.) Soczyczi (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category indexing

I don't want to reopen the debate about William of Orange vs. William the Silent (although I tend to prefer a version of the former), but in the category indexing, the editors have kept indexing at "Orange"... now, when you look at a category with "William the Silent", he appears at the letter "O", without any visible reason. It is a bit disconcerting. Should category indexing be done at "W", or should "of Orange" be integrated into the title? -- NYArtsnWords 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I blundered in and deleted the DEFAULSORT that indexed the listing of this article in categories to O ("Orange, William...") instead of W. Then I read all the discussion about renaming, and this note. However, I think it was an appropriate deletion: the name of this article is now "William the Silent", it does not contain "Orange" in the article title, and his name begins with W, not O. He is generally referred to in English as "William...", not the "Prince of Orange". If anyone wants his name to appear under O in a particular category, they can amend the category listing in this article. Mind you, why you would want "William the Silent" to be listed under O, anywhere, is a mystery to me!--Iacobus (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Justinus

They had a son, Justinus van Nassau (1559–1631), whom William acknowledged; some of Justinus' descendants form a Nassau family tree in Britain There's some confusion here: the British Nassau family descend from a natural son of stadtholder Frederick Henry, not from Justinus. Mvdleeuw (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StampWilliamOfOrange.jpg

Image:StampWilliamOfOrange.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 insure 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) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Did not meet fair use rationale, so I removed it from this page. Arnoutf (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

I have withdrawn a premature FAC nomination of this article today; much as I'd love to see a former featured article promoted, the article is still largely uncited and needs more work than could be reasonably handled at FAC. Maralia (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

William I?

I know this is a featured article but... why is it called 'William I of Orange'? doesn't it arise confusion with King William I? Normally (in dutch at least) William of Orange is called Willem van Oranje, letterly William of Orange, never Willem I, because people would think that refers to King William I of the Netherlands!

I know William is the first prince of Orange and thus also Prince William I of Orange and of course it should be mentioned like that in the article but i just think the name of the article should be William of Orange (or maybe Prince William I of Orange, because then you indicate it's about the first william of orange in the prince series, and not the first william of orange in the king series...) --82.74.253.46 13:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There have been five Williams of Orange (in addition to three Dutch kings by that name), so the name alone is not specific enough. In addition, in English contexts, "William of Orange" usually refers to William III of Orange, also king of England. Hence the name. Jeronimo 14:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, William is not the first prince of Orange; he is properly called "Prince William IX of Orange". He was, however, the first prince of Orange who was also Count of Nassau; the number I refers to the House of Orange-Nassau. Therefore, I think the page should be moved to William I of Orange-Nassau. Eugene van der Pijll 14:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. We should definitely try to keep te article at one of the names he is known best by (in English), William of Orange or William the Silent. Since William III is already at William III of England (the preferred format for kings), we could place him at William of Orange, with a disambiguation note at the top. Jeronimo 14:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AHhh that makes it even more complicated... but i think we should go for "we could place him at William of Orange, with a disambiguation note at the top." then. --82.74.253.46 22:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think the location William of Orange would be appropriate for this William, in an English-language encyclopaedia. Most (English) people really would expect to see William III there. William the Silent or William I of Orange-Nassau would be. Perhaps we should wait for the opinion of some native speakers? Eugene van der Pijll 23:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the page would probably be best placed at William I, Prince of Orange-Nassau. It doesn't sound too bad, it's clear who is meant, and it's consistent with the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), William being non-royalty. Eugene van der Pijll 00:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noone will ever enter that in search for our dude you know? Could just aswell call the article GroteHotemetootinHolland then... (and non-royalty? at that time it still was a title based on a certain estate he ruled as a prince i think...) --82.74.253.46 00:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not call him Stadholder Willem I? He was a stadholder and no sovereign in the Netherlands, just in his private possesion Orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.209.136 (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversion

Is it perhaps relevant to mention someplace that, chiefly for political reasons, in 1573 William joined the Calvinist church? Perhaps in the introductory paragraph?...

Did he???? According to my knowledge William remained a catholic. I am not sure, so please provide sources about the conversion Arnoutf 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He did. When he married his third wife he was openly Calvinist. I believe he married her, and there children where all baptized in Calvinistic fashion. Although it should also mention that this was mainly political, It has been recorded that he called himself a heretic for being Calvinist (I'll try to find the source of this). Dany174 22:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

At first, William does not seem to have had very strong convictions either way. Jonathan Israel says that in earlier years, while his family had German Protestant connections and his father had had strong Lutheran tendencies, William kept professing "unswerving loyalty to the Catholic Church in letters to Philip" (The Dutch Republic, paperback version, 1998, p. 140). According to Geoffrey Parker, The Dutch Revolt, William became a Calvinist in October 1573 (p. 148). Before that, according to the same source, he was a Lutheran (p. 147). Iblardi (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he had very strong feelings either way either. He was born and raised in Luterian Dillenburg, but when he became heir of (French) Orange he moved to the Catholic court of Charles V; and turned catholic at that time (probably for political reasons). It seems his conversion in 1573 was also at least partially political as the protestant were stronger supporters of the revolt compared to the catholics. Arnoutf (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Spain-Portugal war?

According to the article

Because he [the Duke of Parma] had agreed to remove the Spanish troops from the provinces under the Treaty of Arras, and because Philip II needed them in Spain's war with Portugal...

Which war is that? I haven't found any mention of it in Philip II. In fact, Philip became king of Portugal in 1581.

Top.Squark (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed section. Although it might be the Philip II needed some show of power at home to get the Portuguese crown; but that would requires sourcing. Arnoutf (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The French were enemies of the Dutch?

According the article

The Duke of Anjou was not very popular with the population. In their view, the French were enemies...

Why were the French enemies? Is it because they were Catholic? If so, isn't it more correct the Duke (being Catholic) was an "enemy" personally, since some French were Calvinists (the Huguenots) and supported the Dutch cause? Also, does "population" refer to all of the Dutch or only the Calvinists?

Top.Squark (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree this should at least be sourced. Removed for now. Arnoutf (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New Year's Eve Speech

Recently a freely translated quote from Orange's "iconic" speech to the Council of State of 31 December 1564 (commonly referred to as the "New Year's Eve Speech" in Dutch historiography) was added to the lead section of the article. The footnote at the end of the citation refers to a recent book where the quote is given in Latin, but the entire source for the speech is now available in several versions on the internet. The easiest way to access these versions is to enter the "enclitic-or" construct "modereturve" (which ends the previous sentence in the summary) in google. This should render about four or five links, most to different editions of C.P. Hoynck van Papendrecht's "Analectica Belgica" (1743) in which a summary of the speech by Viglius was reprinted from his autobiography. This summary appears to be the only available source for the text of the speech (though Hoynck van Papendrecht himself cites another work, Tableau [de l'histoire] des Princes [et principauté] d'Orange ([1639], p. 336) by one Joseph de la Pise in note 3 on p. 185). On the web site dutchrevolt.leidenuniv.nl (also one of the google hits) one finds a number of other versions of the speech by later historians, but all of these seem to have been derived from Viglius' summary.

Though I have no quarrel with the free translation given in the article, I think the wikilinks to the wikipedia articles Freedom of thought and Freedom of religion might be considered a bit anachronistic (in as far as the articles refer to the modern concepts). As Martin van Gelderen points out in hisThe Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt 1555-159 (p.37) at the time of Orange's speech the quarrel was more about Philip II's infringement of "ancient privileges" of the Netherlandish provinces, like the ius de non evocando. Another version of the speech, the one by Florentius van der Haer, De initiis tvmvltvvm Belgicorvm (1587; also on the web site of Leiden university) seems to support this. He quotes Orange as saying:"...,probari sibi nihilominus eam Regum consuetudinem non posse, ut suo arbitrio ac iussu fidem Religionemque intra quos vellent terminos coercerent." In other words, here Philip is gainsaid the right to "on his own initiative and order" put boundaries to Faith and Religion, let alone infringe the old customs of the kingdom.

Another interesting point is the translation of the quote itself. Taken in isolation it reads (if I may be permitted my own translation): "Besides, even though he himself would have decided to cling to the Catholic religion, it can nevertheless not please him that princes want to rule men's souls, and to take away the liberty of Faith&Religion from them." Virtually everybody interprets this as meaning that the "he himself" refers to Orange. Actually, in the version of Van der Haer this is even less subject to doubt, as he says:"... Catholicum se Orangium existere, neque ab ea sese Religione abduci ullatenus posse..." in the clause just preceding the one quoted previously. However, if one reads the version by Viglius in context it seems possible that Viglius, at least, intended to have the "he himself" refer to Philip, as Orange harangues the king in the previous sentences in the same indirect speech Viglius uses for the entire summary. Of course, if this is true, Orange's intent would remain the same, but the part of the sentence that refers to Orange's determination to remain a Catholic (so embarrassing for later Protestant historians) would receive a quite different meaning.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, on second thought I think the existing translation is the better one. If this sentence runs like a normal Latin sentence, you would expect that the "quamquam"-phrase expresses a statement which is in direct opposition to the subsequent "non posse tamen ei placere". This could only refer to Orange. If Philip himself were intended, the sentence would probably read something like "Non posse tamen ei placere, velle Principes animis hominum imperare, libertatemque Fidei & Religionis ipsis adimere, etiamsi ipsi Catholicae Religioni adhaerere constituerint" or something similar. The sentence is not necessarily embarrassing either, as it can be (and often is) interpreted as showing that Orange's motives for defending freedom of religion are "noble" as he has no stake in it. Iblardi (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. "Et quanquam" at the beginning of a sentence often denotes a conjunction with the preceding sentence (In this case:"Quam-ob-rem rectiùs eum facturum, si, quod ipsi faciunt, itidem dissimulet, Placcatorumque poenam tollat, modereturve.") My point is that the two sentences therefore should be read in conjunction. Another Classical example of such a construction is Cicero's "Haec frequentat Phalereus maxime suntque dulcissima; et quamquam translatio est apud eum multa, tamen immutationes nusquam crebriores." I do agree, of course, that "quamquam" in isolation introduces an opposition of two clauses, and also that quamquam in combination with a subjunctive (as in this case) denotes the concession of a fact (so maybe the translation should be in the indicative?). But the main point is that "et quamquam" (like "quam ob rem") should be considered a general expression. I concede that my translation ("besides, even though") is not correct. It should probably be rendered as "and yet" or (as in the quote by Cicero) "but though," or something like that.

Sorry, but I find it difficult to follow your analysis. There is a full stop before "Et" in the 1743 edition. Et quamquam can mean two things: "and although" (with et as conjunction) or "even although" (with et used absolutely). I do not see what point the Cicero example is supposed to illustrate except that it parallels the construction used here ("...et quamquam ... tamen"). Et quamquam is not a fixed expression, or "general expression" (I am not sure what to make of that). The text is naturally written with the purpose to be understood without much difficulty by its intended readers, and we should not try to make it more complex than it is. Iblardi (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The point of introducing the Cicero example was to show that this grammatical construct parallels a rhetorical one that was used quite frequently in classical oratory. If one looks for it, there are plenty other examples. As I am no expert, I am not sure if there is a name for the entire device, but I think the name for the two clauses of the second sentence is "occupatio," or maybe "procatalepsis" (i.e. pre-empting an objection by first feigning a concession and then countering the objection). The first sentence is the main argument (which in the case of Orange's speech happens to be in the form of a rhetorical question). A quite beautiful figure of speech, in other words, somewhat like a sequence of fencing moves: thrust, parry, riposte. I think it is quite a waste that this rhetorical flourish in Orange's speech has fallen by the wayside, because people myopically focus on only one part of it. Which brings me to your argument from the punctuation that is used. As you know, the function of punctuation in Latin is performed by grammar and idiom. I am therefore not impressed by the fact that a full stop was used after the previous sentence by the editor of Viglius papers (a question mark might have been even more appropriate). This does not invalidate my argument at all; the sentences/clauses are clearly conjoined.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may make an additional argument: Orange's speech was part of a debate with other members of the Council of State, among others Berlaymont and Viglius himself (see the context of the quote in Viglius' autobiography). It stands to reason that the debaters used rhetorical tricks to convince their audience. The occupatio was one of those standard tricks, which always followed certain rules: the grammatical form was "quamquam + subjunctive ... tamen..." and in the Quamquam-part a possible objection was conceded, but in the tamen-part a counter-argument was then offered to neutralize the effect of this concession for the main argument. What would be a plausible objection to Orange's main argument that Philip was too doctrinaire in enforcing the placards against heresy? That Orange himself was a good Catholic? Not likely. But the objection could be that Philip was such a good Catholic. In my reading of the quote Orange concedes this fact, but then shows that even a good Catholic cannot approve of government meddling in religious affairs. And with the latter claim he appeals to sentiments that his interlocutors will share, instead of presenting them with a bombshell that would appear completely new to them, as some would have us believe. Remember that at the time in question not just the persecution of heretics was controversial, but the entire product of the Council of Trent (as referred to in the speech), especially Philip's reforms of the Netherlandish diocesan structure. The problem with the quote is that Viglius presents it in indirect speech: Viglius tells us what Orange said about Philip. This required some awkward use of intensive pronouns that easily could put one on the wrong trail, especially if one quotes out of context.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

But apart from this grammatical disagreement: what do you think of the main point I made, to wit, that the wiki links anachronistically insinuate a pioneering role to Orange in the formulation of the concepts of freedom of conscience and worship? In any case, I think by emphasizing this particular sentence the other points Orange made in his speech, and which may have been more important, get short shrift. I think it would be better to put the speech in the main body of the article, and to discuss all elements and their political import.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am completely in favour of delinking those terms and moving the passage to some other place within the article. Iblardi (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to agree on one point, therefore :-) However, I think the speech in its entirety should be dealt with in the body of the article, not just the passage. I am somewhat mystified that this has not happened before, in view of the importance of the entire episode of which Orange's speech was a part, both in the history of the Dutch Revolt, and Orange's personal biography. The first paragraph of the "From politician to rebel" section seems the logical place.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, in terms of interpreting who is saying he will remain a Catholic, that we shouldn't be using our own independent analysis of the Latin text, but rather looking to what the historiography says. john k (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority, if not all of it says that it is William saying that he will remain a Catholic. Iblardi (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. In that case, we should not be making up novel arguments. john k (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection is exactly against the making up of the novel argument in the article by claiming an anachronistic meaning for the quote. In the article the concept "fidei&religionis," that contemporaries used as a unitary term, just like "panem circensesque" (or "fidem religionemque"; see the paraphrase by Florentius van der Haer I cited above; try googling these terms and see how many hits you get) is split into the modern concepts of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. I think this cannot be supported by the historical facts.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First assassination by gun

I hope this is not too pedantic but to clarify, William the Silent was the first head of state assassinated by hand gun (in this case two possibly wheellocks). James Stewart Earl of Moray was indeed assassinated some years before William, but he was shot with a carbine (short barrelled two-handed musket possibly a doglock). The gun still exists. The Earl however was technically only acting regent for his young nephew James who was the King. Incidentally the Earl of Moray was not the first Scottish nobleman to die by gun that unenviable distinction goes to the unfortunate King James 2nd who died at the seige of Roxburgh Castle in 1460 when the cannon he was standing next to exploded, of course this was an accident rather than assassination, but he is the first King to be killed by a gun. In good faith. AMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.44.207 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article says: "According to a British historian of science Lisa Jardine, he is reputed to be the first world head of state to be assassinated by handgun. The Scottish Regent Moray had been shot 13 years earlier, being the first recorded firearm assassination." Do you have an issue with that?

It might be worth mentioning that the increase in gun assassination and assassination generally (Admiral Coligny, Henry IV of France etc) and in particular for sectarian religio-political reasons was a phenomenon of the period. Time to archive some of this page. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added an archiving bot, that should start clearing out the talk page soon. As this talk page is not extremely busy I have set it at threads inactive for a year (365 dyas) for now. Let's see whether that clears up enough. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)