Jump to content

Talk:Charles the Bald

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gmason30. Peer reviewers: Gmason30.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

I am no history scholar but how could Charles the Bald be suceeded by Louis II if it says he recieved the crown AFTER Louis II's death? --24.68.196.173 06:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are many Louises here. The Louis II that died in 875 was Charles' nephew Louis II, Holy Roman Emperor. The Louis that succeeded Charles was his son Louis II of France, a.k.a. the Stammerer. I've rewritten it a bit to make it clearer. Markussep 15:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why he was called "the Bald"? Was he?

He clearly needed a nickname because both his famous grandfather and his son were called Charles. I'm not sure if this is more than legend, but the story goes that Charles had a poem written that praised baldness as a virtue. He must have had a reason for that. Now it would be interesting to know if he got the nickname before or after the poem... --Chl 20:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles' 'baldness'

[edit]

I'm a history student at Sheffield in England and I think I can answer that one. The epithet 'the Bald' is a sort of early medieval humour; it probably means that Charles was really hirsuite, with a full head of hair and a beard to boot!

Do you have a reference for that? -- Chl 15:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles' 'baldness'

[edit]

Not specifically, but my seminar leader assures me that's the case and she's very knowledgable on early medieval England and Francia.

Another funny name given to a "Charles" --66.218.23.59 01:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The generally accepted explanation is that Charles' baldnes did nor refer to his hair at all. The true reason is in the article: "He was born on 13 June 823 in Frankfurt, when his elder brothers were already adults and had been assigned their own regna, or subkingdoms, by their father." Charles was bald or 'naked' because there was nothing left for him to inherit. In German he is called 'Karl der Kahle'. 'kahl' translates as 'bald', 'bare', 'bleak', 'naked'. 141.13.8.14 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be instead that "bald" was originally Old High German bald meaning "bold"? The Latin translation of his name may have been in error. --146.142.4.32 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem sentence

[edit]

Reading through the article I came across the following sentence ...

The attempts made by Louis the Pious to assign Charles a subkingdom, first Alemannia (829), then Italy (in 832, after a rising of Lothair), and then the country between the Meuse and the Pyrenees (in 832, after the rising of Pepin I of Aquitaine).

Attempts were what, successful? unsuccessful? dogged with difficulty until ultimately successful? Lacking sources myself I am obviously unable to correct it so I am posting this in the hope that someone can confirm and edit this sentence. Tyhopho 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Fixed. Srnec 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coinage

[edit]
Charles le Chauve, denier, Bourges, after 848.

Here's a coin of Charles the Bald. Doesn't seem to have so much hair indeed. Feel free to insert it into the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CORONATION DATE NOT CORRECT

[edit]

The article claims in two sections, that the coronation of Charles took place on December 29, but this is false, as it was December 25th 875 -- Christopher von Babenberg -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.129.6 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Charles the Bald/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good long artilce, but needs cites. Coemgenus 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Coronation Date?

[edit]

I understand that this article has been around for a while and that there is a dispute on the coronation date. Does anyone have an update for this? Otherwise I will attempt to find a reliable source to verify. Gmason30 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he unpopular?

[edit]

Why was Charles the Bald so unpopular within his dominion? Is there any literary evidence to how he ruled the people? I will research this just in case there aren't any answers and I'll add it in. Gmason30 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Surtsicna has changed Charles's title from Carolingian emperor to Frankish emperor on the ground that he is trying for consistency with emperors after Charles the Fat, who were not Carolingians. This is obviously correct as the Caolingian dynasty came to an end with Charles the Fat's deposition in 888. This is no reason why Carolingian emperors should not be described as Carolingian. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, I was the one who inserted the wording "Carolingian emperor" just today, and an hour later I changed it to "Frankish emperor". "Carolingian emperor" was not an age-old wording. Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit citing source in French

[edit]

Boubloub your edit at [1] cites a source in French. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." As there are good English language sources on Charles the Bald, including Nelson's biography, I do not think foreign language sources should be cited for this article. It makes it more difficult for readers to check and follow up sources cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald

[edit]

Bald Old German Foremost, king, prince, lord. Also beald. Refer to Baldr, called Foremost, Poetic Edda. Contemporary Anglo-Saxon Chronicles Sæbald (Foremost in Victory) 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:9D (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:NCRAN, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and, in some cases, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV.

CONSISTENT applies because these are rare exceptions in the List of French monarchs; almost all of them use the proposed form, such as Robert I of France, Louis V of France, Philip III of France. RECOGNIZABILITY applies because even readers familiar with European monarches are unlikely to recognize which country many of these belong to.

COMMONNAME likely applies to Charles the Bald, Louis the Stammerer, and Charles the Fat. Given that names like "Charles II" are not distinct it is difficult to determine just the comparative frequency, but a search on Google Scholar suggests the ordinal form is the most common:

WP:NPOV applies to all the non-ordinal names; while we can use non-neutral names in some circumstances, per WP:NPOVNAME, we should only do so when it is the overwhelming common name and other considerations do not apply. This is not the case here; these names are often used less often than their ordinals or, in the case of Charles the Simple, about as often. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He is not described as Holy Roman Emperor in the article as the title had not yet been invented. The examples you cite for Charles II in Google Scholar are not for Charles the Bald. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I've removed Charles II and Charles III from this proposal; a future one can consider the best titles for them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except Charles II and Charles III, which were removed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 11:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There have been many previous discussions on several of these, which are not linked. To say "RECOGNIZABILITY applies because even readers familiar with European monarches are unlikely to recognize which country many of these belong to" is nonsense as far as at least the Louis's go. Not enough evidence is produced that the two "West Francia" names are in common use. Current attempts to move British monarch names along similar lines are failing (and this nom should probably have waited until those were done). This debate should not be on a talk page that is now not affected by the proposal. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The state should be stated in the article's title. Dimadick (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? For what reason? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a repeat oppose as the previous one only applied to Charles the Bald, which has now been withdrawn. The names were changed the opposite way as a result of a move discussion in January 2021. There is nothing wrong with the names and we should not keep chopping and changing - and taking editors' time to debate the same issue again. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We title articles as their most common name in English and we don't throw a disambiguation into the title unless one is needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rreagan just above. For the top two I would also note that the locutions "Louis II of West Francia", "Charles III of West Francia" are not common at all, basically non-existent in printed literature. I also agree with Johnbod that nobody with decent familiarity with European history would have any difficulty recognising Louis XI etc. as kings of France. —Al-Muqanna (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggested titles for the articles on Louis the Stammerer and Charles the Simple actually violate WP:CONSISTENCY (as well as WP:COMMONAME). Because even when a territorial designation is used for the articles on kings of West Francia, it is simply "of France"; ex. Odo of France, Robert I of France, etc. In some instances, a territorial designation is not even used at all; ex. Carloman II. This is in line with WP:CONCISE which can also be presented as a reason to avoid adding unnecessary disambiguators to the names of monarchs when they are not needed, especially when the subjects are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Keivan.fTalk 18:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to "of France" instead of "West Francia". However, we do need to move those titles; calling someone "the Stammerer" or "the Simple" is not compliant with WP:NPOV and absent a very strong WP:COMMONNAME argument (which doesn't exist here) we shouldn't be using such descriptors. BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a pretty strong COMMONNAME argument actually. All of the sources on the first page of the Google Scholar search you linked for '"Louis II" West Francia' are in fact referring to either the emperor Louis II of Italy or Louis the German (aka Louis II of Germany), both contemporaries. Al-Muqanna (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Help! Again we have a proposal to move a large number of monarchs which people may have different views about. I would actually support restoring pre-emptive disambiguation to the later Louis's and Charles X. I'm cautious about changing earlier monarchs known by cognomens, particularly since "West Francia" is a bit obscure. However we deal with Napoleon III, I would avoid treating him differently from Napoleon I and Napoleon II. Could we do a "snow close" on this, and discuss some specific proposals on their individual merits. PatGallacher (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The WP:RECOGNIZABILITY criterion doesn't mean that more explanation is an improvement for that criterion, even to answer the most basic questions readers may have. Answering readers' questions is the job of the article, not the title. In different cases, "of X" may be necessary or unnecessary, depending on the actual degree of ambiguity. Louis XI – XVIII, Charles X, and Napoleon III are unambiguous, or in the cases of Louis XIII and XIV, clear primary topics over Louis XIII (cognac) or entries at Louis XIV (disambiguation). For Louis Philippe I, there is Louis Philippe I, Duke of Orléans as a competing topic, but I'm not sure why the duke's article is titled with a number "I" in that way. I have no clear opinion on whether Louis the Stammerer and Charles the Simple are the common names, so I'll say neutral for those, but overall there's an element of WP:TRAINWRECK as different cases implicate different considerations. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least one of them is the common name, making this mass nomination inappropriate. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI and Napoleon III are definitively the common and most recognisable names and the primary topics and should not be moved. —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Louis II, Charles III, Louis Philippe and Napoleon III. Support the rest. Flip-flopping between including "of France" and excluding it based on whether the king is named Louis does not seem helpful to me. But I do not see a need for consistency across major constitutional inflection points. For Carolingians, nicknames predominate in RS. I think we should avoid "West Francia" in titles. Srnec (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Louis II, Charles III, Louis Philippe and Napoleon III. Clear common names. Neutral on the others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Louis the Stammerer and Charles the Simple appear to be commonly used nicknames, and they are not ambiguous. Likewise, I see no need to add the territorial label to the other monarchs. Louis XIV is pretty well known. Векочел (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that this has elements of a trainwreck but even if we discussed all of these individually, I'd still likely oppose every single one for reasons of recognizability. Killuminator (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Louis XVII should be included for moving to "Louis XVII of France". GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. He was a claimant, not a monarch. The numeral is a dynastic legitimization choice. Killuminator (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt piling another train in will help this discussion. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

[edit]

Mr Information has repeatedly edited the infobox to make Lothair king of West Francia until 843 on the ground that "This section doesn't need, it's more based on the text below. Besides, according to the inheritance laws, when Louis died in 840 Lothair succeded him as the oldest son, until the Treaty of Verdun that divided the kingdom in three."More based on the text below" and assertions about inheritance laws are POV. The text says that Louis the Pious made Charles his heir to West Francia, and that Charles governed the territory after his father's death until his kingship was formally ratified in 843. It does not say that Lothair was ever king of the West Franks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_the_Bald&oldid=1252190007"