Talk:Electorate of Saxony

I have done a quick copy-edit on this, but I don't think it was in bad shape to begin with. Unless anyone objects, I shall remove the copy-edit tag. Arthur Holland 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gots some titles and links problems
ref: (Intro) Kingdom of Saxony (1806).
 * The Electorate of Saxony (Kurfürstentum Sachsen) was an independent hereditary
 * electorate of the Holy Roman Empire from 1356–1806. It was  the successor state
 * of the Duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg and was itself replaced in Napoleonic times by the

I've added clarify tagging in the above, which I was comparing to the contents in Saxe-Wittenberg, redirects to Wittenberg. Looking at both articles, some things are out of synch, and the political entity was almost certainly not refered to as the Electorate of Saxony... likely was another Duchy of Saxony.
 * In my unclear tagging:
 * Firstly: under the house of _____ and inherited by the Saxe-Wittenberg family I suspect, which greatly increased their holdings, I would infer. As a state title, it sucks, as you are confounding a state and a dignity (title) and so both with a geo-political region!
 * Second: Some timelines problems here with Saxe-Witternberg article. The state (diplomatic title) in the thirty years war era was what??? Wasn't that referred to as yet another Duchy of Saxony? Or just as Saxony?

Cheers! // Fra nkB 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dukes of, Duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg articles also needed. If the fate of the electorate was shared by the dukes, fine, but the duchy needs some separate treatment too.
 * One consequence is Saxony (disambiguation) needs clarified (and patched) as well.
 * Looking over Saxony, looks like this electorate should be named Upper Saxony.

Original tag content
The plagiarism tag that appears originally had this content, which is reproduced here so the details are not lost. Note, this is a textual negative of the original appearing tag (all bold was Roman text, and vice versa in the original tag content), by virtue of the tags default to make its text content bold. Note, in following, hard breaks were added to make manifest the markup breaks that appeared in the original tag. For discussion: "The specific problem is: the entire main body of this article corresponds to "II. Electoral Saxony," a section of public domain but clearly attributable, authored, and citable content by scholar Hermann Sacher. This WP article was a re-transfer from the WP article History of Saxony that itself was, in the relevant parts, a PLAGIARISED transfer of material from that public domain article, "Saxony", by Sacher, at the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913). In particular, the first three sections of the March 2006 version of the "History of Saxony" article corresponds 100% to the first two sections of Sacher's article, a transfer done without apparatus of quotation, and without specific attribution to that author, although an incomplete CE link appeared (lacking even article name!).

The assignment "plagiarism" is justified here, because a second transfer, in August 2006, was made from the "History of Saxony" article to create this WP article, the result of which was that the whole of this "Electorate of Saxony" article (sans lede) still corresponds very significantly to Sacher's section II., "Electoral Saxony," see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Saxony. [Via copyscape, ~65% of that source article still appears here in verbatim lengths of up to 60-70 characters; and ~55% of this article is verbatim plagiarism from that one source—the differences being, in largest part, (i) the block omission of about 780 characters (125 words) from the original source followed my many small (<10 word) changes from it, and (ii) a series of long (> 30 word) likewise unsourced insertions into this article, ranging from 200-750 characters.]

BOTTOM LINE, SEVEN LONG BLOCK QUOTES FROM HERMANN SACHER PLUS SIX SHORT INSERTIONS FROM HISTORIC WP EDITORS WOULD CREATE AN "ELECTORATE OF SAXONY" ARTICLE THAT IS NOT PLAGIARISED AND MOSTLY SOURCED (THE INSERTIONS, SINCE FROM THE CURRENT COMPLETELY UNSOURCED ARTICLE, THEREAFTER BEING THE ONLY REMAINING WP:REFIMPROVE ISSUES)."

Again, content of this, placed here for discussion. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have heavily edited the frequent German sentence structure of the English text herein and I believe what we have now is not plagiarism having studied Sacher's original, with the references now added. --Po Mieczu (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kursachsen-Erz.png
 * Neither the electorate nor the elector ever used this coat of arms, never existed. Also the electoral hat is also inaccurate. — User:Dragovit (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Hi everyone! The coat of arms currently being used in this article cuts off part of the swords and is generally not ideal. The coat of arms used would be more accurate (not to mention aesthetically pleasing) if they included the entirety of the charges and were presented in a period appropriate escutcheon (see the references section for examples of the arms). The arms in Sir Ian's flag accomplish all of this, but they don't seem to be isolated and/or usable. Could someone with editing capabilities isolate the shield so that it can be used for this article? Of course, I mean no disrespect to Jimmy44, but I do think this change would be for the better. Theodore Christopher (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia issue
I would like to correct the CE issue by translating the 'Political History' section of the German-language article Kurfürstentum Sachsen. It will probably need some abridgment, and where it's appropriate I can include (CE-referenced) material from the English-language version that's not in the German. The German 'Political History' section has about 70 citations, so it's well-sourced and should make a good article.

If anyone has any objections or suggestions, let me know. I'm ready to get at it. GHStPaulMN (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Translation from the German article
This translation comes from the 'Political History' section of the very long German-language article. I did a considerable amount of abridgement of the 'Political History', leaving out lower levels of detail, redundancies, and most but not all of the passages that focused on economic or social history. I'm still confident, though, that the final translation is true to the German and reads as a coherent narrative. If anyone disagrees, please let me know.

As for the original English-language article, I kept almost none of it. Its sections on religious topics were overly long (because of their source), so I didn't see any reason to keep them. Virtually everything else is covered in the translation, but without the potential plagiarism issues. GHStPaulMN (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)