Talk:Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine (1874–1878)

Deletion?
Kind of ironic that this article was proposed for deletion on the same day that Princess Marie died. Morhange 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That actually is kind of spooky! Charles 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it when I saw the deletion category and remembered the bit about other family deaths occuring on Nov. 16. Certainly very spooky! At any rate, I think Marie's article should at least be kept, even if Johanna's isn't. There is some pretty good info in here, and it does focus on Marie, instead of being filler from other articles, so I do think that it should stay. Morhange 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would personally suggest expanding a section in her mother's article and moving some of the Marie information there since diphtheria affected most of the grand ducal family and Alice was a unifying element in the situation, being the mother of all of the children and dying from the illness herself. Charles 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * significant historic figure--this is no the same as the 20th and 21st century children of minor nobility or remote descendents of royalty. She was impt. at the time, and there are no doubt historical sources..

German Wikipedia
I try to make an article about May in the German Wikipedia, but it was removed. Not enough relevation. But that think people, which I don't like.

It's better to search something here. I found articles, which never exisist in the German Wikipedia. --AndreaMimi (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

religion
It's interesting that a four year old toddler who couldn't tell time or tie her own shoes apparently was old enough to have a religion. Paul Austin (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed it for now. If there is a reliable source that supports this then it should be mentioned in the article with citation as well as the infobox. It is not unheard of for children to be taught religion at extremely young ages, but a we need verifiability. Chillum 15:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What if a source says she was baptized as something? -which sounds far more likely (and, indeed, probable). Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  16:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It would make sense to mention she was baptised then, which I imagine is very likely. I was baptised catholic, but I was never catholic, my parents were. Something like "Religion: Baptised Lutheran" would make clear the facts without engaging in assumption. Chillum 16:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For children not to be taught religion from a far younger age is an extremely recent idea. Children of this age most definitely can and routinely do hold religious beliefs, unless they're raised in a nonreligious family or nonfamily environment.  Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel uncomfortable in imposing the princess's parents' religion on her, given that she was a toddler and wouldn't have had an older person's grasp of the concept of religion. Remember that children are baptized into a religion without consent as they are infants. Paul Austin (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a princess in the 1800s (especially as the daughter of a reigning Grand Duke), she would have had religion forced upon her. There wouldn't have been a choice. That's just how it was.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Although WP policies are not written with regard to how things were 'then,' of course. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. But, someone who is forced to perform religious belief out of fear of consequences or punishment or whatever, is not actually religious themselves. This especially applies to Princess Marie, a toddler that wouldn't understand things two feet in front of her. Paul Austin (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , in which case I think we agree together -what I meant was, that if our criteria is based on what individuals are sourced as identifying as, then there is no way a baby could meet that criteria? (edit: Sorry, User:Paul Benjamin Austin I didn't ping you properly, and have in fact just pinged an indeffed-sockpuppeteer in error!)  Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  13:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Could you place in the article a note not to add a religion for Princess Marie, who was little more than a baby. The relevant Wikipedia policy should also be amended to clearly state that very young children should not be given a religion, especially historical children who lived in eras where they were forced to p9erform religious beliefs out of fear. Paul Austin (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Good ideas Paul Benjamin Austin, I've inserted the note inside the infobox; not so sure what policy we need to change or how to do so, but will investigate... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea to investigate creating or amending Wikipedia policy so editors are prevented from giving a religion to young children, especially if the children are or were forced to perform religious beliefs and actions out of fear or terror of consequences or punishment. Paul Austin (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should avoid stating the religion because she is a child, but at the same time we should not assume. The only question we should be asking is if reliable sources make this claim. If there are reliable sources stating her religion we should use it, if not then we should not. It is certainly not our position to decide if a child can have a religion or if it is valid if it is forced on them, it is for us to document what existing sources say. Chillum 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ^^I wholeheartedly agree with that entire post, !Cebr1979 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . The problem is that we do have to make judgement calls. Especially in this case as even reliable sources for Princess Marie will repeat her adult authority figures claims that she was Lutheran, even though there is no possible way that a four year old who was LITTLE MORE THAN A BABY could possibly have a deeply held and well thought out religious faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2015‎


 * I very much disagree. When we use our own judgement instead of using what the sources say we are engaging in original research. It is for historians to document the religion of the child if any, it is not for us to decide over century later. Religion and faith are hardly the same thing, one is an organization of people the other is a personally held belief. We should say nothing unless a reliable source comes along, then we should say what the source says. Chillum 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Historians are human and can be wrong. Reliable sources can be wrong. A four year old Hessian princess who is little more than a baby cannot have a religion. Children should not be assigned a religion in their infobox simply because of the say-so of their adult authority figures. Paul Austin (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We are an encyclopedia. You are trying to impose your beliefs on the article. If a source gives a religion and it is from a reliable historical source then we need to accept that and not try to correct history. Children have been assigned religions by their parents for centuries, we should not rewrite that history because you don't think it should be so. I also agree kids should not be assigned religions by adults, regardless that is the world we live in. You are talking about original research, your belief and my belief that this should not be done is not relevant because we are here to document what reliable sources say not our own beliefs.


 * Regardless this conversation is moot unless a reliable source is found stating her religion and someone seeks its inclusion. In the absence of a source we should leave it blank, but if a reliable source is found then we should document it. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 16:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that one may characterise a child as of a given religion or, more particularly, denomination. There is no implication that they had thought deeply and profoundly about the eternal verities. It may be simply that they have been baptised into a particular church in a Christian denomination, or that they have been initiated in other ways in other religions. It may be that it is the denomination of their family and/or community. The denomination may be important for a number of reasons, including dynastic planning, and legal rights and obligations. Certainly many children have been martyred because of their putative religion.

Drawing an age limit based on reason seems a red herring, and a recipe for dispute. (Though I would add that a four-year-old can certainly comprehend the basics of, for example, the Christian religion.)

Having said that I doubt that there is much benefit in the majority of cases in using the religion entry in the Infobox for most who died in infancy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC).


 * I agree with all of that as well, .Cebr1979 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been here since 2002. I used to be an administrator here. I know bloody well how Wikipedia works. That doesn't mean i have to agree with it. Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards a small group of extreme fandom editors. In the case of both Johanna and Marie, their articles have suffered greatly from being created and maintained by hard core monarchist fans who have a hard on for defunct European royal houses. Paul Austin (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have put it better myself Paul Austin, and in the meantime I have monarchism splattered all over my TP, as well as here. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  11:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul I am glad you are experienced here. I have spent a significant amount of time here as well. I don't know much about hard core monarchist fans, as a Canadian I really have somewhere around zero interest in the subject beyond improving the encyclopedia. If the issue of showing the religion in the infobox or in any way related to systemic bias then that something that escaped my notice. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I resigned as a Wikipedia adminstrator after issuing a "back me or sack me" in the face of continued and open efforts by extremists to whitewash Soviet and Eastern Bloc articles. Wikipedia's problems with extreme monarchists are no less difficult. I *know* that some editors all but masturbate when adding their favourite royals to Wikipedia, even when respected places like Britannica rightly has no article on such persons. Paul Austin (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Those participating in this current debate all seem to be solid editors. The arguments being made are all reasonable. I am having trouble seeing how this talk of systemic bias is relevant to the current discussion. Do you think the religion in the infobox discussion we are engaged in is related to this bias you speak of? I don't think that is the case. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 15:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. for members of royal families who died as babies, no religion should be added, even if their parents are quoted by reliable sources as saying that the baby was ,say, Christian and Trusted Jesus As Their Savior. Johanna falls into this category, especially as her life was within the highly anti Christian nazi era. With Princess Marie, I would only stated her baptismal religion as most four year old girls only care about their dolls and what story they are getting at night time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 September 2015‎


 * I have met enough 4 year olds to know that they have incredible imaginations, I don't think it reasonable for you to assume limits on their capacity to believe in something. Again, it is not for us to decide what a kid can or cannot believe or if that belief is the standard in which membership in a religion is based. On a case by case basis we need to reflect what reliable sources say. We cannot on a case by case basis decide what we think history was, that is original research. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 15:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were Britannica, little Marie wouldn't even have an article here, let alone Johanna. Wikipedia's standards are too vulnerable to extreme fandom. Paul Austin (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We have very different inclusion standards than Britannica. They could not possible cover even 1/200th of the valid subjects we cover. I am pretty sure this subject meets our inclusion standards. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to be having a lot of trouble detaching your politics from your scholarship. You're retrospectively imposing a rather modern view of religion on all of history; there have been periods where the religion that notable persons professed, regardless of whether they sincerely believed in it, have been points of great importance and contention. It may not be logical or sensible, but it's true. Likewise, whether or not you think monarchy makes sense doesn't affect its historical importance. I've edited a great number of articles on the British peerage, not because I'm "a fan" of hereditary right, but because I find the system and its rules interesting. I study them; I don't uphold them. You might wish these things were of no scholarly importance, but that doesn't affect the judgment of the world at large. Choess (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)