Talk:William I, German Emperor

Add-on to: Proposed move to William I, German Emperor
(section added, since previous section is closed and should be left undisturbed LMSchmitt 12:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC))

I propose that the name remain 'Wilhelm,' rather than William. The idea that the article be called 'William I' is absurd. During his own lifetime, he was styled and referred to as 'Wilhelm'; this was his personal and dynastic name, not 'William.' We don't refer to Ivan IV of Russia/ the Terrible/Vasilyevich as 'John IV of Russia' or 'John IV Son of Basil.' Doesn't anyone else see the absurdity of this proposed move? The history books may call him 'William,' but that doesn't make them right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDunn1937 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor are they wrong; but as the authoritative sources, they're what Wikipedia follows.--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you see, they are wrong. They may be authoritative, but they are not infallible. Simply because the English version of his name was 'William' does not mean that a German leader should be referred to as such. He was named Wilhelm, not William. It's actually a prime example of cultural arrogance to claim the right to call persons of other nationalities by the translated versions of their names. Is Juan Carlos I normally referred to as 'John Charles I' in the news? Unless I'm wrong, he's not. Therefore, the argument that authoritative works refer to this person as 'William' fails, it being common practice in the past to translate names to the respective language of the translator. Consequently, the implication is that books written during the 19th/20th centuries, when this practice was commonplace, are justified because Wilhelm lived in the 1800s. I'm surprised that no one else appears to recognise how ridiculous, and even mildly offensive, this is. Referring to foreign persons of note by their birth-names may be a relatively new practise that some might see as an exercise in political correctness, however, in this instance, I believe that this is just that, correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.28.87 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many (most?) people from history - even other English people, if you go far enough back - have their names spelt and spoken differently from the way they themselves spelt or spoke them. It's just the way the English language does things (and other languages do the same thing). One day perhaps people will come around to doing it the way you think of as "correct" - when they do, Wikipedia will naturally follow.--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To anonymous IP 75.181.28.87 who wrote: " I'm surprised that no one else appears to recognise how ridiculous, and even mildly offensive, this is." Please read the discussion.  Some strongly opposed the move from "Wilhelm" to "William".
 * --Frania W. (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC).
 * To understand why English usage was as it was (modern usage differs), you need to notice that the current British monarchy were originally German and that an earlier monarch was Dutch. Names were translated in deference to public sentiment.  Several other empires have routinely translated the name of the ruler into local forms, at least as far back as Xerxes.  AJRG (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No one would balk at Guillaume I, empereur allemand in French or Isabel II de Reino Unido in Spanish... English, however, must always bend to non-English forms? Seven Letters 16:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Protesting that "I just don't like it" is not an argument. Translating foreign names, especially of royals, is not "cultural arrogance" - everyone does it. A German colleague tried to suggest the English were arrogant for going around the world renaming places into English (Munich, Rhine, Black Forest, etc) until I pointed out that Germans did exactly the same (Schottland, Kapstadt, Großbrittanien) as did the French (Angleterre, Allemagne, Londres), whereupon he ate some humble pie. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention "Elisabeth II".91.34.203.197 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that "everyone does it" does not mean that it's not cultural arrogance. Now we're saddled with the absurd situation that one Emperor Wilhelm is called "William" here, while a grandson that was named after him is referred to as "Wilhelm", and various institutions and buildings named after the same "William" have Wilhelm in their name (see the society, the church, and the bridge, to name three). Consistency, please. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This WP article keeps the proper German name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor. Google translates Wilhelm (GER) to Wilhelm (ENG). LMSchmitt 12:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand why this topic is brought up again and again. And I really don't understand why William II was renamed. Just look at the German Wikipedia. The names of British monarchs there are given in their German form. Conversely, it's only logical that the English Wikipedia uses the English names. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it's inconsistent and, thus, not so good. The split William I--Wilhelm II is explained in that Wikipedia use is mostly William I and Wilhelm II (a consequence of WW1 where English use wanted to stress "German Enemy"). In my opinion, one should leave people their proper name, even monarchs. Google does. Germans can read Charles I and don't need Karl I. Except when it's a German. Peace.! LMSchmitt 17:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Why can't people figure out if his name was "Wilhelm" or "William" ?
His name was "Wilhelm". Why is Wilhelm the First called "William I" and Wilhelm the Second called "Wilhelm II"? Inconsistent in choosing what to change the name of historical characters to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2013‎

During the Victorian Era, Prussia was (sort of) allied with the UK, through the Crown Prince's marriage to the Princess Royal - but after Wilhelm II's reign and WW1, "William" was changed back to "Wilhelm", to alienise and Germanize the Prussians. Franz Josef was previously known as "Francis Joseph". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why was the photo changed?
There doesn't appear to be any significant differences between the current and previous portrait used in the infobox, aside from one taken as German Emperor and the other as only King of Prussia. Anyone else prefer reverting to the last image? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Numbering
Can it be proven that immediately when Wilhelm I ascended the Prussian (not German Empire) throne in 1861 he was referred to as Wilhelm I and not Friedrich Wilhelm V or Wilhelm V ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.44.172 (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Brazil's Southern Cross award
Under his titles, it says he was awarded the Brazil's Southern Cross Medal (Medalha do Cruzeiro Sul). I tried to find a source that explained what he did and how he received such a medal, but couldn't find one. On the award's page, it says one was given to his grandson, Wilhelm II, on 1878, not Wilhelm I. There is no mention of Wilhelm I on there. Was this a mistake? Did both Wilhelms receive the Southern Cross? Did his grandson receive one, and this title got added here by confusion? I'm willing to translate sources in portuguese, if anyone can find them.

Also, another discrepancy: on Wilhelm's II page, it says he was awarded one in 1878, and in the Order of The Southern Cross page, it says it was given on July of 1877. 2804:18:683F:E419:1:0:B5B5:7EDB (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

art
he is the o;der one 20012 204.101.49.85 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)