Talk:Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten

Zieten's flank march
no word about Zieten's flank march? lock at the main articel "battle of waterloo" there you will find some missing informations.

Title
From the history of the page:
 * 8 September 2007 Philip Baird Shearer m (moved Hans Ernst Karl Graf von Zieten to Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten: Graf is title equal in rank to a count)
 * 22:18, 15 November 2007 Olessi m (moved Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten to Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten over redirect: status as a count can be mentioned in the article instead of including an awkward comma in a German name)
 * 15 November 2007 Philip Baird Shearer m (moved Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten to Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten over redirect: Reverted move See Naming conventions (names and titles)

This was the first article I have come across using a German title and an English-style comma. The standard naming for non-ruling members of the German nobility has been Foo von Foo or "Foo Title von Foo". I could understand including a comma if the article was titled "Hans Ernst Karl, Count of Zieten", but this individual was not a monarch. Olessi 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you have raised the issue under Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). I suggest we discuss it there and then post a summary of the outcome here. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The naming conventions already handle it. When the titles are in English, it's Title Name preposition Familyname/Place for cadet members of a family and Name, Title of Familyname/Place for heads of families. That's if the titles are used at all, they don't have to be. There really is nothing to be discussed at WT:NC(NT) about this matter, it would be pointless. Either these people were known by titles or not. If they were and it is all in German, it goes at the end of the name without a comma. Charles 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, just a note, I have changed the title of that discussion back to what Olessi had it as. Rather than taking over one discussion, you should start another if that is what you want to discuss, although like I've said, it's already covered. Charles 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The form Name, Title of Place is not just for monarchs, it is also for holders of substantive titles and heads of families. If Hans Ernst Karl was the head of the Zieten family, he could very well be titled Hans Ernest Karl, Count of Zieten. There is not standard for German nobility alone. This article could be titled Count Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten, Hans Ernest Karl von Zieten or Hans Ernest Karl Graf von Zeiten (no comma) as well. The form "Count von" is ugly to me personally and would be sloppy at best otherwise. Charles 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Epoche-Napoleon.net says that the general came from the Zieten family line from Dechtow; I have not found anything yet indicating there was an actual place called Zieten (which does not mean such a place does/did not exist). The link says that King Frederick William III elevated Zieten to the status of Graf on 3 September 1817. -- Olessi (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The best title then would probably be Hans Ernst Karl Graf von Zieten or Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten. Charles 20:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Without the comma, anyone who does not know that graf means count (most monoglot English speakers) is likely to assume that Graf is a Christian name (just as many would with the words Duke and Earl!). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why Template:German title Graf exists. Olessi (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * User instead with a reference tag at the bottom (it will automatically generate the reference from the template). Charles 20:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Graf" is likely to be unknown to most readers of English Wikipedia. Therefore, since there is a standard and widely-used translation, Graf should be avoided. When referring to German dukes (Herzogen) and barons (Freiherren), most Wiki articles don't use the German language word and unpack its meaning via template -- they simply use the English word for those titles. This is especially appropriate for "Graf" because the English word "Count" exists for this sole purpose. It is not the English-language word for nobles of this rank -- their title is "Earl", not "Count". Rather, "Count" is the word used exclusively to translate into English specific continental titles, including "Comes", "Greve", "Conde", "Hrabě", "Kreivi" and the German "Graf". If his family had reigned over a county, it would be appropriate to to translate as "Count of Zeiten". But in this case "von Zeiten" appears to have been merely his surname: Either he already held that name, or he was authorized to add "von" to it, as was customary when elevating individuals in the German or Austrian nobility. Thus his proper titulature in English is his Christian name title surname, i.e. "Hans Count von Zeiten". Lethiere (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two English language words for the title, Earl and Count, not an English language title of Earl and a substitute English word for all else. His proper titulature has not been determined. If he was the head of his family and was "of" something, he is Hans, Count of Zeiten. It not, he is either Count Hans of Zeiten or Count Hans von Zeiten (separating the English title from the "surname"). If he was given the "von", he was obviously created "Graf von Zeiten" and not "Graf Zeiten". The "von" just doesn't stay static and in the German language like that. I've never seen it to be proper form. Charles 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the phrasing "Given Name _ English title _ von _ Foo", ala "Hans Count von Zieten", is rather rare. Rather more understandable to me would be the phrasing "Count Hans von Zieten" (ambiguous with the Frederician Zieten) or "Count Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten", although my preferred title omits the Count/Graf entirely. Blücher's Army by Peter Young (1973) uses the phrasing "Hans Ernst Karl Graf von Zieten". Phrasings I disagree with are German/English combos such as ", Graf von Zieten" or "Count von Zieten". Olessi (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion if count were to be used then it should be "Count of Zieten" but the von is often not translated into English so I see no particular reason to translate the Graf. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with "Graf von", but I fail to see what you mean about "von" not being often translated into English. Charles 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip's comment above indicates to me that he thinks "Graf von Zieten" should be the phrasing, not a variation using Count or "Count of". If so, is his concern the inclusion or exclusion of the comma? Commas are not included in German names if the title is not translated into English; Charles and I have both expressed support for "Hans Ernst Karl Graf von Zieten" and "Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten". Olessi (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite common in English not to translate the von in a German name, and if it is not translated the we should use "Graf von" not "Count von" although I'm not dead set against "Count of" I think it would lead to the name as "Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten, Count of Zieten" I am not in favour of removing the comma as it makes it clear to a reader that Graf is a title and not a name. We do it for British nobles and French nobles of the same period (see Michel Ney) and I do not see why we should not do it for German nobles as well.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not fair or correct to mislead the reader into believing that there should be a comma when we had instead link the title Graf or use one of the templates to make note that it is not a name. A reader who does not know that Graf is a title will probably still think What? upon seeing it with a comma. After all, it is part of his name. We simply do not do this for German nobles because it is not German usage. Note that when we use a French language title, we are also following French usage of that title... Which coincidentally follows English language form. Note also: WikiProject_Germany/Conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, an example, note the intro name for this ruling duke: Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Charles 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link WikiProject_Germany/Conventions notice it is talking about "Titles of contemporary persons who merely use the title as a consistent and de facto part of their surname are not translated in Wikipedia" AFAIK titles were abolished in Germany and all that happens is that decedents of former aristocrats have taken up the affectation of incorporating their titles into their names. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point the name of the article should be "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." As we have a naming convention Naming conventions (names and titles) should we not use that format and not one that is used in German Wikipedia articles? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The English format of titles does not include the title of "Graf", therefore the titling of this individual falls outside of that. Most English readers who can recognize the title will recognize the form of Hans Ernst Karl Graf von Zeiten as being correct over Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zeiten whereas those who do not recognize the title will be confused by both. Those who do not recognize it can be informed via a link or whatever else. The naming conventions cannot be applied until it is known if this man was Count Hans von Zeiten or Hans, Count (of) Zeiten. Charles 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For purposes of the article title, it is irrelevant which form his title and name took in German. The Naming Conventions call for use of "Count".. Since the title was created after 1815 he couldn't have been a reigning count (or held the status of one, as did, for instance, the Counts of Bentinck), so he was never the Count "of" Zeiten; the info cited thus far is that "Zeiten" is not even known to have existed as a "place". When ennobled the family would have been allowed to add "von" merely as a mark of noble status. Nor would he have been created "Count Hans von Zeiten" whether he was the Count or a Count von Zeiten: it cannot be incorrect to name him "Hans, Count von Zeiten", even if he was a cadet. Reluctance to mix languages in such matters is an artificial and sudden purism: Google "Count von" and you'll find thousands of examples of this usage, many pre-20th century -- not to mention the Earls De La Warr and Lord von Münzberg. Still, if there is no consensus for that, it is better to call him "Hans Count of Zeiten" than "Graf" anything, with or without comma. The "Graf" template is suitable for cases like that of Lambsdorf, where the title is nowadays treated purely as a surname (i.e. no feminine version is used by daughters or wives). (By the way, preservation of titles in surnames is not, as in Italy, a de facto "affectation": In 1918, all German titles were automatically converted into part of the individual's surname de jure.) Lethiere (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The naming conventions do not mandate the use of a noble title. If he was "a" count, rather than "the" count, appending the title to the end of his name, while citing WP:NC(NT) for that, would be incorrect. Either "von" is a mark of nobility that is not needed in English when using an English title or it is translated. After all, we have Prince Bismarck, etc. There is a difference between titles which were created using prepositions from languages other than the one used by the nobility in which it was created and a German title created in German with a German preposition. Charles 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are all personal preferences, not rules or conventions contained in WP:NC(NT), which mandates no distinctions in noble titles between substantive and cadet titles, nor between surnames that contain prepositions and those that don't, nor that titles be dropped rather than used with surnames that contain foreign prepositions. All that the convention requires is that the form of the name most commonly used in English or most recognizable to English-speakers be used. Prince Bismarck is a re-direct to Otto von Bismarck-- for good reason. (Moreover, the only case in which a title was legally required to prefix the first name and surname was for cadets of French peers. It is no more proper to omit or alter the order from title-name-surname than it is to re-style Lord Frederick Windsor to Frederick, Lord Windsor merely because one prefers that form, yet that too has been mangled on Wikipedia as, e.g., with Count Pierre de Polignac here) Lethiere (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The naming conventions use the form Name, Title of Place/Name for holders of substantive titles and heads of houses. You imply that the naming conventions automatically apply to people with titles, they only apply where titles are used. You also comment regarding "Count Hans von Zeiten" vs "Hans, Count (von/of) Zeiten", saying the latter cannot be incorrect although it would not be used if the naming conventions you cite were applied if this man was not the head of the Zeiten family. I do not know how the statement or comparison to Lord Frederick Windsor applies, we know he is not the Lord Windsor but he could have very well been named Frederick Windsor for all it matters. Charles 06:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The part of WP:NC(NT) that must first be applied to von Zeiten is "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem". But Google Books turns up too few English references to the subject of this article to indicate which form of his name is "most common" among English-speakers. Therefore, the next part of the convention that is applicable here is found under rule #7 of Other non-royal names: "use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name". That means translating his forenames (as much as I dislike doing so) into something like "John Adam Charles", translating his title from "Graf" to "Count". Since his surname was "von Zeiten" before and after he became a count, and the search mentioned earlier in this thread failed to find any realm called "Zeiten" over which he or his family reigned, the prima facie indication is that "von Zeite", like any other non-dynastic surname, should not be translated into English merely because the title of Count was conferred upon him. The convention also states that the rules on order of title/name/place, etc. apply only to royalty, and are therefore irrelevant to this discusssion. We know that von Zeiten became a titled nobleman, so the naming of his article is governed by the portion of the naming convention that covers noble titles, i.e. rule #7 of "Other non-royal names". The Windsor example simply illustrates why one cannot take the rules that govern a title (such as those for French peers' cadets) and alter them to suit personal preference (rather than WP:NC(NT), as you and others did in editing Pierre de Polignac (i.e. it is as incorrect to convert "comte Pierre de Polignac" into "Count of Polignac" as to convert Lord Frederick Windsor into Frederick, Lord Windsor). Lethiere (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies
Epoche-Napoleon.net states Zieten's given name as "Hans Karl Friedrich Ernst", while Napoleon-Series.org states "Karl-Wieprecht-Hans-Friedrich" (with correct birth/death years). The latter link says that Zieten received the Pour le Mérite in 1792 (presumably during the First Coalition); neither Epoche-Napoleon or the corresponding de:Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten:German WP article make any mention of Zieten having received the "Blue Max". Rather, both state that Zieten received the Iron Cross, 1st Class, for his actions in 1813. -- Olessi (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Starting with Generalfeldmarschall
From the history of the article:
 * 17:08, 16 November 2007 Olessi (add Epoche Napoleon info/dates; remove Generalfeldmarschall from intro, as it misleading suggests he held that title during the Napoleonic Wars)

It is usual to include such a rank at the start of an article see for example: It does not matter when the subject is prompted to the rank. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
 * Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
 * Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma
 * Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis