Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 7

Tag
If no editor who supports leaving the disputed tag up has anything to say about how to improve/fix the article other than deleting/redirecting it, then the tag should come down. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is clear from comments in the last section that some editors support leaving the disputed tag up. Just like yours, my position has not changes since I posted the first comment to this talk page 10 years ago in a section now archived as "Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1". The majority seem to agree that the title is not a good one. I still suggest that this article is moved to King of the Germans. -- PBS (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with with PBS on both points. And the fact that consensus has not yet been reached is not a reason to give up on it. A tag illustrates that (at least to some editors) a page has problems. It's not a warning, nor a badge of shame, but a reminder that this still needs to be sorted out. It hasn't yet. While I definitely proposed deleting it at first, I've mentioned several alternative solutions since then. Also, I don't see how redirecting it doesn't count as a possible solution. Its name and scope are the most controversial parts of the article, meaning that even if everything else was changed this still wouldn't address the main issue. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, the tag must stay up until either the name or the scope is changed? This is a joke. The name has been settled by multiple RMs and many, many sources. Srnec (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not about the title. There clearly is a concept in English sources called "Kingdom of Germany". We just can't agree what the sources mean by it and therefore what the content of the article should be; hence the tag. Not helped by the fact that different authors use the title in different ways, which makes it difficult to construct an article that reflects them. I was translating a German document on the use of German and Latin names for the kingdom/empire and it's clear that, right from the start, usage varied between sources and over time. So it's not surprising that we're finding it tough or frustrating. I'd like to investigate it more thoroughly, but don't have the time right now. To be fair, while I think we need a tag, the current one doesn't really reflect the situation I'm describing. Maybe there's a better one? --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bermicourt, what about this one? You're certainly right to question what content is supposed to be discussed in this article. Quite a few Wikipedians, including myself, haven't been able to understand what kind of article Srnec had in mind when he removed the redirect to East Francia. If we do keep the word "Kingdom" in the title (still IMO an inapt translation of Reich/regnum, "realm"), the lead will have to explain what this thing is or was and in what way it actually existed. It currently hints at it being a polity; it has a map at the top that asserts the German King's absolute rule over this region (demonstrably false) and sits in the category "Former kingdoms". The section "Terminology" discusses all sorts of sources, titles and quotes referring to something that could be translated as something akin to "German Kingdom", but in no way does it prove the existence of one such thing. In fact, most of them quite clearly refer to different things. It is interesting though. In contrast, "Development" is wholely about East Francia and serves very little purpose here. All mentions of unity building and "the state" refer to East Francian politics. The question, then: what part of this Kingdom of Germany could I have actually observed at the time? If the answer is none, the article's scope must be limited to discussing the historiographical concept like the German article does. The "Terminology" section could be used for this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is asserting the German kings' absolute rule over the region and why should it matter when talking about the existence of a polity? The king of France at times had no absolute control over his kingdom yet we can clearly refer to his realm as the kingdom of France.--MacX85 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the issue. The problem is that, unlike German sources, English sources appear to use the term "Kingdom of Germany" in a variety of ways, some precisely, some vaguely, and that makes it difficult to agree what the article should cover. My sense is that it should reflect the different usages, but that requires detailed research which most of us don't have time for. By contrast the equivalent German article, de:Regnum Teutonicum is short and precise because German sources seem to restrict the use of the term to that part of the HRE north of the Alps. This reflects the primary sources from the 11th through to the 16th centuries when the term Deutschland started to take over. I think that also needs to be reflected in the article somehow. Hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the the term in English is used only to refer to "that part of the HRE north of the Alps". I can't ever recall an author using "kingdom of Germany" to refer to the Empire as a whole. Some might use "German empire" (a distinction harder to make in German), but that itself is consistent with (some) primary sources and even, towards the end of the Empire, some official usage, if I'm not mis-remembering.
 * As a data point, here is how Ian Robinson describes the empire in the introduction of his biography of Henry IV: "The empire, created in the tenth century by the great warlord Otto I, had none of the centralising characteristics of a modern state. Its three main component parts were the German, Italian and Burgundian kingdoms, which possessed a common ruler but no common institutional framework." Likewise the publisher's abstract calls the book "the first book in English devoted to the German king and emperor Henry IV, whose reign was one of the most momentous in German history and a turning-point in the history of the medieval empire (the kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy)." The term "kingdom of Germany" is intended to pick out that part of the Empire (sometimes in its early days called East Francia) that was not Burgundy or Italy. Srnec (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Srnec, that's helpful. Susan Reynolds (Fiefs and Vassals) says that the "kingdom of Germany is taken here to cover all the territory included in the great kingdom... that developed out of the eastern part of the Carolingian empire." The phrase "taken here" indicates that she is having to formulate her own definition perhaps because of the lack of consensus on what the term means. If I come across other definitions, I'll post them here. Bermicourt (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And Sabina Flanagan (Hildegard of Bingen) asserts that the "kingdom of Germany was comprised of (sic) five great duchies: Franconia, Swabia, Saxony (incorporating Thuringia), Bavaria and Lotharingia." She goes on to say that "because of the lack of centralized government, over the years a great deal of power had devolved upon the men on the spot and the authority of these dukes, margraves, and counts was usually in inverse proportion to the frequency of the king's visits to their territory." Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * W.R. Smyser (How Germans Negotiate): "Although the northern part of the Holy Roman Empire might be called by a name that identified it as German, such as "The Kingdom of Germany," and although the entire empire was sometimes entitled "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" after it had lost its Italian possessions, the empire had no distinctly German political or sovereign authority..." Bermicourt (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The king of France at times had no absolute control over his kingdom". In name and law, he did. It's pretty clear in sources that the French and English monarchs had much more power (as their lands were more centralized) and crafted a way clearer concept of one country—not multiple cooperating states. I seriously question the point of the constant comparisons with France because the two simply weren't the same. Having the map place the Netherlands within the Kingdom of Germany is bizarre. The author looked at dated German renditions of the Holy Roman Empire and arbitrarily decided that the Netherlands was part of Germany (the maps themselves claim no such thing, only that it was in the HRE). We have to struggle to justify this article being this long. There really haven't been any convincing arguments for why it shouldn't be a brief description of the term like the German article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, MacX85, are you familiar with WP:SPA? Your contributions have huge time gaps and are all on German historical-political articles. And I'm going to be honest here because I think it's increasingly clear: this article can not and should not be saved. Srnec has been struggling to keep it alive ever since he created it over a decade ago. There have been dozens of flabbergasted editors who insist the polity never existed (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many by User:Mootros that I won't include). This is not to mention the literal dozens upon dozens of edits made to the article such as this one last week. Now he wants the tags to be taken off the page because there keeps being no consensus—something to which he greatly contributes by stonewalling ("repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution") any merge, scope or name change proposals. Critics of the article typically give up long before the discussion is over whereas proposals suddenly get joined and opposed by the few people over the years who wanted to keep the article alive and as-is. Please, Srnec, drop the stick. It's been 10 years. You even once suggested merging East Francia into this, clearly illustrating that you also view the two as extremely similar. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't familiar with it. But I don't think it concerns me as I don't go ahead and change articles. I merely post in the discussions section from time to time.--MacX85 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * James C. Kennedy, A Concise History of the Netherlands (Cambridge, 2017), pp. 34–35:"Lower Lorraine, including the present-day Netherlands, would constitute a part of the Germany-centred East Kingdom, and not, like Flanders, part of the West Kingdom, which became the kingdom of France. Boundary disputes between the German and French kingdoms did effect the region, however, as the border between the two ran across present-day Zeeland... Rather than becoming a part of the kingdom of Frnce that later showed strong centralizing tendencies, the Netherlandic parts of the German kingdom remained for a long time ... at the political and economic periphery of an already fragmented German kingdom."Thomas A. Brady, German Histories in the Age of Reformations, 1400–1650 (Cambridge, 2009), p. 14:"The Empire's northern boundary [included] most of the modern states of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Most of these Low Countries (hence 'Netherlands') lay in both the German kingdom and the Empire, from which they were detached legally in 1548 and politically a century later."—Srnec (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Both again say "German Kingdom", which we've argued before is far from the same as "Kingdom of Germany". "Germany-centred East Kingdom" (as opposed to the West Kingdom) in the first example clearly means East Francia. I tried to look up more on it in Dutch and stumbled upon the Dutch "History of Germany" article, which had the following to say for that period:
 * During the High Middle Ages there emerged in the German lands a monarchy that we could call "German". There came a definitive end to the unity of Francia. After an uncertain start, the kingship was developed under three consecutive dynasties: the Ottonians, the Salians and the Hohenstaufen. [...] For the first time the name 'kingdom of the Germans', regnum Teutonicorum, was used to refer to eastern Francia.
 * (I am, of course, aware that Wikipedia is not a source, but I'm not using it as a source.) This is to further illustrate the difference between what historians write and what this article implies. It follows nearly every source so far in saying that some form of monarchy arose from East Francia—one that is German in the sense that it was ruled by or ruled German people—but never is this monarchy considered to rule a distinct polity. Authors dance around the terms "German Kingdom" "Kingdom of the Germans", "Regnum teutonicum" and every variation thereof to time and time again refer to either East Francia or the Holy Roman Empire. Meanwhile, every variation of "King of the Germans" has been about either these two or a given title without an actual kingdom (e.g. "King of the Romans"). History of the Low Countries by J. C. H. Blom and E. Lamberts (2006) is the most widely used reference book for Dutch history. It manages to describe the now-Netherlands region around the year 1000 without mentioning a Kingdom of Germany, going straight from East Francian German kings to Holy Roman German kings and emperors. The Kingdom of Germany was created by trying to read between the lines for something that wasn't there. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * German authors hardly use the term probably because they and their readers are more familiar with their own history. I think English authors use it either in ignorance or as a convenient shorthand for the "states of the Empire north of the Alps" or as a more readily understandable alternative for the HRE. Nevertheless, the fact that "Kingdom of Germany" or "German kingdom" is frequently used means there is some validity for an article which at least explains the various ways English sources use the term. Trouble is, it could be WP:OR because I haven't come across sources that do that. They either don't define it or give their own definition, ignoring how anyone else uses it. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But German readers have been among the most astonished by this article. Of the numerous examples I gave above (the 13:39, 8 November edit), many were Germans who said they had never heard of something like this. They also pointed out that the German Wiki had no such article, as it had been deleted for the very same reasons (it now has an excellent, brief article exclusively about the terminology). The German Wikipedia is highly regarded and sourced. If they have established this matter on their own history about there being a "Kingdom of Germany" as being nonsense, that should tell us something. The reason you're going to find a combination of "German" and "Kingdom" often is because "German" in history books refers to 3 things: 1) relating to German(ic) people 2) relating to the region now occupied by Germany 3) relating to anything, from "Teutonic" to "Germania", that could be translated as "German(ic)". And "kingdom" (regnum) is used just because they called themselves "king" (rex); there was no actual kingdom apart from East Francia and the HRE. This is a translation thing again. Many languages including German and Dutch barely distinguish between something ruled by an emperor and something ruled by a king. We refer to the whole of Roman civilization as "Romeinse Rijk", for example. Any mention of "King" relating to ~10th century Germany comes from Latin rex, which simply meant "ruler". Because "empire" (imperium) doesn't make sense in this case—even for the HRE in its early stages—authors naturally go for "kingdom". I don't think that validates the claims of a kingdom having existed. I've seen the much more accurate "realm" used on occasion but English sources tend not to use this word as much. In all of these cases, they still very much mean either East Francia or the early HRE. Why else are all these "German kings" mentioned either Eastern Frankish rulers or HRE Emperors? (Just try this: de:Rex Teutonicorum leads to the German version of King of the Romans). Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your first point. The English authors that have been cited and quoted time and again on these talk pages (and who are listed in the article's bibliography) are familiar with the German sources and are writing primarily for an academic audience. Indeed, some of the cited sources (e.g., Fuhrmann, Müller-Mertens) are German historians translated into English (by German specialists like Timothy Reuter). These authors are not ignorant nor are they using sloppy shorthand. The works in question are not popular works, but academic ones. (As a semi-serious aside: I wonder if it isn't the Germans that are the problem. It's their favoured word, Reich, that is ambiguous, as opposed to Latin regnum and imperium. Likewise, their Römisch-deutscher König or Kaiser is more anachronistic than anything you routinely see in English sources.) Srnec (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Srnec, historians aren't necessarily linguists nor are they translators. What's more, there are things you can't translate without changing their meaning. We can't draw conclusions from the exact wording a few of them chose to employ when it's clearly not universal. If it was used deliberately, better sources would exist. regnum is a (distant) cognate to reich and not unambiguous. It does not always mean a literal Kingdom, since a rex was just a ruler and "King" is only one of hundreds of titles that exist for rulers in English. Lewis & Short's A Latin Dictionary (which specifically covers Late and Medieval Latin) gives as definitions "kingly government, royal authority, kingship, royalty". Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Was the Kingdom of Germany even a reality?
I'm not sure we should have this article presented in a way which overstates some basic facts about the 'kingdom' or at least not in its current POV state, in which it presents the Kingdom of Germany as a real entity, because there is very little evidence that there was such a thing as a 'Kingdom of Germany' This 'kingdom' was kind of like the made up Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria which the Austrians created from the part of partitioned Poland they took — just to fit some legal or political narrative. Same with the Kingdom of Germany it was an idea more than a real entity. Btw, what's up with the western part of the Duchy of Poland being called a 'Stem Duchy' yet at the same time its part of the Polish realm under Bolesław I the Brave. --E-960 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * E-960, see the above section. You're not alone in thinking it's represented inaccurately. Basically it appears the term was based upon a claim and professed title rather than actual dominion. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you could make the case that there was no kingdom at all which the term "kingdom of Germany" refers to. From 843 to 962 there certainly was, since there was no HRE to speak of during that time. I can see how you can make the case that in later centuries there might not have been a kingdom distinct from the empire and that it mainly existed as a title but it's not like it didn't have a basis in historic reality. --MacX85 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly, German scholars don't use the term. Secondly, the precursor to the HRE was not a Kingdom of Germany, but the Frankish Empire, or Francia. From 843, it was split into West, Middle and East Francia. In 987, West Francia became the Kingdom of France; Middle Francia lasted 12 years and was then divided three ways; in 962 East Francia became the German/Austrian/Bohemian part of the HRE. In German historiography, the Kingdom of Germany is occasionally used to refer to the (mainly) German-speaking parts of the HRE north of the Alps, but that is all. In English scholarship, the term is used more widely but, in my experience, quite loosely and misleadingly to imply an entity similar to England or France, being used perhaps because English readers are more familiar with the concept of Germany than the HRE. Readers only familiar with English sources will naturally assume there was a 'real' Kingdom of Germany, whereas German readers don't.


 * Currently the article assumes that the Kingdom of Germany emerged from East Francia in 962, the date usually seen as the foundation of the HRE. The argument is based on the emergence of the terms regnum teutonicorum and "King of the Germans". However, the former, which appeared in the 11th century, was unofficial and disparaging and used in papal circles to play down the role of the emperor. Equally the term rex Teutonicorum was unofficial and, in any case, meant "king of the Germans" not "King of Germany".


 * All that said, there could still be a useful article that explains a) the use of the original terms, b) how the term is variously used in German and English sources and c) the reality of the fragmented empires (Frankish and Holy Roman) on the ground. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's still being presented as a literal entity in Holy Roman Empire and Holy Roman Emperor, as well as many others. This is probably what misinforms readers the most. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Peter Wilson, Heart of Europe (2016), at p. 217:"Imperial reform [around 1490] greatly strengthened the coherence of what had been the kingdom of Germany. Increasingly, this was now called 'the Empire', especially by outsiders who indeed viewed the Italian and Burgundian lands as separate Habsburg personal possessions. A major factor in this shift was the absence of German coronations after 1486, removing the separate significance of the German royal title since whoever was elected automatically became emperor. The institutions created through imperial reform were primarily intended to regulate how the German kingdom was governed, not the wider Empire, since the Burgundian and Italian lords had already been excluded from the process of choosing a German king by the mid-fourteenth century. Thus, constitutional change combined with the distribution and management of Habsburg possessions to sharpen the distinctions between Germany, Italy and Burgundy."If he mentions it, we can. Srnec (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We can, but not based on one source. The term 'kingdom of Germany' is used in various ways by different authors. Typically English authors will say things like "I will take the Kingdom of Germany to be..." which makes it clear that they're making up their own convenient definition. German authors avoid the term. All this needs to be explained and isn't - only one view is propounded and that is misleading. But you have the edge, Srnec, because your text made it into Wikipedia first and the rest of us don't have the time to collaborate and rewrite the article(s) in a balanced way reflecting multiple sources, which is what is needed. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

King of Germany
The introduction talks about the title 'King of Germany' and gives a link however page it links to is not what is said but rather is for the title 'King of the Romans'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:F051:C6AA:C1F9:78C6 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is part of the whole problem. There was no official Kingdom of Germany and so no official King of Germany. Even if you type it into Google Books (by century or you get spurious results) you get hardly any hits. Bermicourt (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At Google Scholars, I get 2,040 results for the exact phrase "King of Germany". The title rex Teutonicorum was used officially at times, as was König in Germanien or Germaniae rex at a later date. And that's not to mention non-official usage. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a lot of hits considering all the scholarly work on this topic and still doesn't explain the almost entire lack of the term in English books, let alone Germany ones. Yes, it is a term used by some authors, but it is not common nor is it accurate, so it should not be portrayed in this article as if it is. BTW Rex teutonicorum does not mean "King of Germany"; it means "King of the Germans" which is not the same thing. Neither of the other titles mean King of Germany either. Bermicourt (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @(2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:F051:C6AA:C1F9:78C6) - a Google Books view at verifies this translation (per ref #3). While differing views exist, many other acknowledged historians also use this terminology (see talkpage archives for the endless discussions about this question with multiple differing arguments and sources). GermanJoe (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "King of the Germans" or "German Kingdom". While these translations can still be disputed, they are not nearly as problematic as applying the term "Germany" to it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
With such a complex and controversial topic, an infobox does more harm than good. It's incredibly difficult to cover all differing views in accessible prose, let alone in a random collection of simplifying parameters. Also, as already mentioned in the edit summaries, a lot of the added information is about HRE in general and not about this specific entity (and of dubious factual accuracy). Also also, edit-warring of unexplained changes via dynamic IPs is frowned upon. GermanJoe (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree, there's too much ambiguity for such an infobox. I also have no idea where that random Macedonian IP came from. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox Infobox former subdivision was ill suited to this. I tend to disagree that this is a "controversial topic": I do not agree that there has been "controversy" (aka edit-warring) on this Wikipedia page, but this fact does not necessarily reflect the existence of a genuine controversy.
 * The concept/term/entity just existed over such a period (700 years or so) that its nature was transformed substantially, comparable to the Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire).
 * Does the Duchy of Cornwall exist? I suppose so. Is it "real"? It isn't a territorial subdivision of the UK today, but it was a territorial subdivision of the Kingdom of England in the 14th century. So, I suppose its nature changed over the duration of its existence, and the question of "is it real" is not well-formed, or lazy. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "" have you read the archives? The title of this page has been under discussion for more than 10 years (see the very first posting to the talk page: "Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1" and many many subsequet sections). That there has not been edit-warring over the content of the article is because it has been a dispute conducted with restraint.
 * Your analagy over Cornwall is not a very good one there is a fundemental difference between a dutchy and a kingdom. A better analogy would be on of the constituent countries of the UK or the Kingdom of Ireland. There is no dispute that Scotland and England exist, but neither is a kingdom (that ended in 1707). However between 1603 and 1707 the Stuarts said they reigned over the Kingdom of Great Britain, whilst the Parliaments (excluding the Commonwealth parliaments (1649—1660)), said they did not, they reigned over two seperate kingdoms (four if one includes the Kingdom of Ireland and the pretence of reigning over the Kingdom of France).
 * To state that any of the Stuarts apart from Queen Anne reigned over the Kingdom of Great Britain is misleading, as would dating the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain to have taken place in 1603 just because James I styled himself King of Great Britain. This is the same problem with using the term "Kingdom of Germany" rather than the term "King of the Germans" one implies in a state (with a functioning goverment over concrete territory), the other a title which may or may not have substance. Ie Idi Amin could claim he was King of Scotland but that does not mean that the kingdom existed, having an article with the title "Kingdom of Germany" is as misleading as starting the date of the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1603. -- PBS (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * dab, this discussion has been going on for years. The fact that no solution thus far has been agreed upon doesn't mean there's no longer a controversy. Plenty of people—me included—would still contest that this was ever an entity and not just a title or early modern invention, and would also contest that regnum teutonicum translates to "Kingdom of Germany", or that the territory in the map used was ever actually allocated to such a "Kingdom". Since the sourcing is problematic and extremely scarce, little can be done without delving into the subject first. The discussion died down only because of how little traffic this article's talk page gets and because most of us already exhausted our points. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And, as I've said before, while the term 'Kingdom of Germany' is used by some English-language sources, rather loosely in my view, it is almost entirely absent from the much larger corpus of German-language ones, which reinforces the point. Even the Germans don't consider there to have been a Kingdom of Germany, but they do talk about a King of the Germans. The term Regnum Teutonicum (German Empire) or Regnum Teutonicorum (Empire of the Germans) was used early on, but only as a descriptor of that part of the HRE north of the Alps, just as Regnum Italicum was used for 'imperial Italy', that part of Empire south of the Alps, but in reality another collection of states within the HRE. Bermicourt (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this should be a problem. I mean, I get, perfectly, that there is a whole range of views on this. I don't even have a view on it myself, that's why I said the question is just ill-formed. Obviously this is the situation the article is going to reflect. I don't have a problem with different views being presented as part of a well-developed article. What I don't get is why the article needs to remain in "content warning" limbo. How is it in any way difficult to write an objective and uncontroversial article about a disputed or controversial topic? This the case with is pretty much every major article on Wikipedia.
 * The problem, to me, seems to be that, for example, Prinsgezinde seems to assume that there are "real entities" and "non-real entities" and that it is our job to distinguish between the two. I am sorry, this isn't encyclopedic writing but metaphysics. The "Kingdom of Germany" is clearly a completely made-up entity just like every other human concept. We can only ever have articles about completely made-up human concepts, I really don't see how this needs to be said at all.
 * I invite you to deposit any number of references to scholars who think the thing is "an early moden invention", just as long as it allows us to get rid of the content warning. WP:DUE applies, every concept on god's green Earth can be made to seem "problematic". The trick is to not go out of your way to play this up selectively, for concepts you happen to dislike personally, and instead stick with representing the rough shape of mainstream consensus. If the consensus is that scholars have just agreed to disagreed, so be it, just say that. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The point about the Kingdom of Germany being 'made up' is not that it is a human label; as you say the names of all countries are human inventions. The issue is whether this article reflects the sources. The sources vary considerably. AFAICS most sources avoid the term Kingdom of Germany and talk about the HRE. However, there are quite a number of modern, English sources that have started to use the term Kingdom of Germany almost as a shorthand - some even admit that - for that part of the HRE north of the Alps. This does not reflect the historical or the German position, but it should be represented. However, the article as written gives the impression that the KoG existed in the same way as other kingdoms and does not explain that a) it is a modern artifice that doesn't reflect historical actuality and b) that there are other positions or descriptions used by the vast majority of historical, German and even English sources. I used to think the title was totally wrong, I'm now persuaded that an article could be written about it, seeing as some English writers use the term, but it needs to reflect the sources in a balanced way. And this one doesn't. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have cited a lot of sources on this talk page over the years. If there is an accuracy problem that needs fixing, then we need to see some citations and quotations from reliable sources. Here's a quotation from Herwig Wolfram (you can look up the original German if you want): "Conrad [II] issued a second diploma that fundamentally expanded the Trentine [sic] sphere of influence by granting the Italian bishopric secular control over two counties considered parts of the German kingdom." This is from the book subtitled Kaiser dreier Reiche. (Three!?! I thought there was only the empire!) There are, of course, many other quotations I could have used, but I like the "considered parts of" part. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the lack of sources, it's the lack of balance. The article cites only those sources that use the term KoG and not the majority that don't. For example, the article doesn't mention at all that German sources almost never use this term and they form the biggest corpus of literature on the subject. There is no discussion of the way the sources talk about the historical collection of states that had a German culture and were loosely bound together as only one part of the HRE. Bermicourt (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. The article is not finished (it is in fact very incomplete) and nothing prevents you from editing. Hell, I've even given links to sources in German that I wish I could read. And I've cited Müller-Mertens' Regnum Teutonicum several times. His work is not hard to find. I've taken it out of the library, but my German is just not good enough.
 * For what it is worth, I think "historical collection of states that had a German culture and were loosely bound together" is a terrible description of the Holy Roman Empire. The Empire was not a federation formed by bringing together different states. The kingdom/empire pre-existed all of the states you see on early modern maps. They are a product of its internal political order and not a loose collection. Only outside of Germany, in Italy and the Kingdom of Arles, do you see the kind of breakdown that ends in de facto independent states only loosely associated. (That is my take based on my reading.) Srnec (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have indeed given a lot of citations, but I and others such as Bermicourt have taken into consideration and responded to each of them. None of them have fundamentally solved anything, and many of them have been inconsistent with one another. Here, you quote a German-speaking historian who no doubt used "Reich" where you put "Kingdom". As we have discussed a few times before, neither "Reich" nor "regnum" are the same as "kingdom". There's a reason "Third Reich" is left untranslated in English; Nazi Germany was neither a Kingdom nor an Empire. "Reich" is most accurately translated as "realm". If this whole article used "realm" instead of "kingdom", there would be no problem. If he actually did use the German word for "Kingdom", Königreich, tell me I'm wrong.
 * My main concern here is honesty to the readers. We can present all of this as if there is no translation issue, as if the term isn't incredibly ambiguous, and as if the "Kingdom of Germany" is as well attested as the other kingdoms on Wikipedia, but that would be quite dishonest. When we present something as a kingdom, readers understandably expect there to have been king and a land he ruled, complete with subjects and laws. When none of this is consistently mentioned in the sources, how can we then so unambiguously present it as a kingdom? This is why so many people have complained ever since the article was created. All we have is a term that has been loosely used over the centuries to refer to something no one can quite agree on. If the article absolutely must stay at this title, it should first and foremost be about the terminology, like the German article is (read that one, it's good). I would still prefer to use the original Regnum Teutonicum like they do, though. The issue with sourcing is that the historians that don't mention a "Kingdom of Germany" avoid the topic altogether. We can't use a source by referencing it and saying it doesn't mention the kingdom, yet it's quite telling how many histories of Germany don't mention it. If anything, that should raise some eyebrows. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Kingdom (without infobox) invading foreign countries(?)
If the Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire were the same entity, then I have a problem with this, that this article says something different from others, where the kingdom behaves as an independent state as active belligerent of some conflict. That's why I returned the infobox to the article (and it wasn't the first time). The last time I met this was in articles about Czech history. For example, Rudolf I of Germany was king of Germany when he invaded Bohemia (see), also many years later another ruler Sigismund of Luxembourg was king of Germany (also of Hungary) when he invaded Bohemia, but he was not yet emperor (see, see). Sigismund was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire many years later. Rudolf I of Germany never became emperor. So, what country invaded Bohemia? These articles mention the Kingdom of Germany or German king. It is often mentioned here that the king of Germany used his forces in battle (see). If they were wrong and the Holy Roman Empire was, it would mean that it attacked itself, because Bohemia was part of the Holy Roman Empire, but never part of the Kingdom of Germany. What does this mean? This propably means that there is something wrong, either in this article or in the others, when I compare these articles, it shows me that Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire cannot be the same entity. Therefore, the Holy Roman Empire does not fit into these articles about conflicts, because that would mean that invaded itself (Bohemia was part of HRE). These articles are about Czech history, but of course there can be many more. So the question is how could the kingdom (without the infobox), which is considered imaginary, be active belligerent of any conflict? Another question is, what should the kingdom be replaced in these articles if not by the Holy Roman Empire? Maybe the better/correct form is "German King of the Holy Roman Empire" or "German King's forces of the HRE" etc, but I don't know if it could be used in other cases, I don't want to invent novelties that may not have a basis in history. Dragovit (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The term Kingdom of Germany is not synonymous with the Holy Roman Empire. It is a term used some authors, exclusively English-speaking ones, either to describe East Francia, the Kingdom of the East Franks, or to describe the collection of states in the HRE north of the Alps. Some also use it to refer to the HRE, but that is clearly sloppy and wrong. German authors, who are needless to say the majority, never use this term, referring to East Francia as Ostfrankreich, the HRE as the HRE and the area north of the Alps in various ways including, historically, Regnum Teutonicum, which can be translated as 'empire/kingdom of the Germans', but it was never a unified political entity under a king. My view is that the article is valid only insofar as it explains the English usage of this term and should not suggest that there was an actual kingdom, the definition of which is "a country ruled by a king or queen". Kingdom of Germany fails on all three counts: it never was a 'country', and it was never 'ruled' over by a 'king or queen'. Each state had its own ruler and they were subordinate only to the emperor. There was never a 'King of Germany', only the honorific title 'King of the Germans' or 'King of the Romans' used to denote the emperor-designate. German authors and many English authors understand this, but some don't and use KoG as shorthand which is convenient, but misleading. Bermicourt (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, these are the conclusions and definitions that you have agreed on in another discussion, but there are no answers to my questions. I understand that you have reached some consensus in the discussion regarding this article, but these need to be answered so that the other articles can be corrected to be consistent and do not contradict each other, because this is what made me add the infobox. So who was Rudolf I of Germany, who invaded the Bohemia and fought in the Battle of the Marchfeld? He was only the king of Germany. Of course he was Count of Habsburg, but he was crowned German king and at the time of the invasion he was. As an ordinary count, of course, he couldn't control German forces and haven't support in the Holy Roman Empire. If the German king is only a honorific title, then the Kingdom of Germany cannot participate in wars as a state. So, in my opinion, there are two possibilities, either the Kingdom of Germany must be defined as a real state or the articles about wars should be corrected, but how? Dragovit (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. I have described my understanding; some editors agree, others have argued that there was an actual Kingdom of Germany which is what the article currently implies. So the article's factual accuracy is disputed, hence the tag. Turning to Rudolf I - classic example - he is not called 'King of Germany' in German sources. The linked German Wiki article is titled "Rudolf I (HRR)" and describes him as Count of Habsburg and the first Roman-German king from the Habsburg family. He also received approval from the Pope to become emperor, so that may have given him legitimacy, or he may just have succeeded in pulling an alliance together. More research needed. Bermicourt (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)