Talk:Kingdom of Germany

Hatnote

@Dom Kaos: If the other thing actually called 'Kingdom of Germany' does not have its own article, then it isprobably not important enough for a hatnote. That is my position. But I see we now have Königreich Deutschland... Srnec (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

'the German people's emotional attachment'

'the emotional attachment the German people had with the superior dignity of the universalistic Roman title had become so firmly established that it was unacceptable to separate the German kingship from it.'

It seems highly questionable that most ordinary German-speaking people in the HRE (who were, overwhelmingly, illiterate peasants) cared much about this, were aware of the issue at all or would have had much say in the matter if they did. The whole sentence sounds as if this had been a modern-style nation state with public debates in the media, public opinion and so on. The source is from the 1860s, so if the formulation is to be kept, a newer source should be provided. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There NEVER was a "Kingdom of Germany"

There never was a "Kingdom of Germany" and the whole article should be removed. It is completely misleading. Even the term "teutonic kingdom" doesn't translate to that and was only used in papal documents to distinguish the "Roman Kingdo" (!) which was located north of the alps from Rome and the Kingdom of Italy. In Germany and in the scientfic historical community we either speak of the Roman Kingdom or the "Roman-German" Kingdom (römisch-deutsch). I thought about reviewing and changing the article. In the end i came to the conclusion that it should be entirely removed. It doesn't serve the purpose of information. In its current form it is misinformation. Heinrich1248 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

None of that is true and it's a really weird thing to make up. Of course the Regnum Teutonicum existed and of course it translates to German Kingdom. ~2026-26432-99 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not as self-explanatory as you're making it sound. For one, it's unclear to what extent there really was such a polity at the time. Secondly, translating Regnum Teutonicum as "German Kingdom" (which I'd honestly prefer over the even more ahistorical "Kingdom of Germany") is a historiographical choice that carries several implications. "Teutonic" is much closer to what we'd now call "Germanic", as in the term Furor Teutonicus. This has been made confusing by the political and cultural-driven semantic drift of the term "Germans" over the centuries. "Regnum" can be variously translated as "realm", "kingdom", "lands", etc. So you could just as easily translate it as "Realm of the Germanics", which carries an entirely different meaning. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Without any sources supporting these claims, the proposals seem to be based on original research. Whether reliable sources use the term is what matters here, and they do so in this case. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of sources for you in the German language article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe not deleted, but this article at least needs to be heavily reworded. The "Kingdom of Germany" seems to mostly be a historiographical name, whatever use it did actually have at the time was as an exonym. This article is very misleading and has probably convinced at least a few people that "Kingdom of Germany" was an actual term used by East Francia and the Holy Roman Empire, or that the "Kingdom of Germany" was some kind of entity that existed within them. Article should be reworded to make it clear that this was not a term they actually used. Edidor123 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The removal of the disputed tag

Last month JeanClaudeN1 removed the disputed tag Bermicourt had put there in 2016 and I readded in 2017. The explanation was "removed disputed tag: article terminology (Kingdom of Germany / German kingdom) supported by reliable secondary scholarship, e.g. Whaley, Wilson and many more, see talk archives". I don't understand what is meant with "see talk archives". This article has always been highly controversial and the archives show it. Discussions go back over a decade and no true consensus has ever been reached on what this article should even be about, with many still believing it shouldn't exist in its current state (or, for some, at all, as the section above shows). Dozens of sources and arguments have been discussed and many disagreements have never been resolved. A consensus was eventually reached to not have an infobox, and perhaps on various smaller points of contention, but not much else. In short, I believe the tag should not be removed without extensive discussion. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this, but I think a few points need to be addressed:

The talk archives do show extensive debate – but what they also show is that those who objected to the article's current state were ultimately unable to adequately support their position with reliable secondary sources, while those defending the article's content cited reliable scholarship repeatedly and at length.

On the disputed tag: these are maintenance tags, not long-term placeholders for positions that were argued and didn't prevail. Keeping one active for such a long time with no ongoing sourced discussion is quietly signaling to readers that the article is more contested than the sources actually show. I therefore stand by the removal as justified.

Since you were one of the editors most actively involved in these discussions, you know that objections of this kind have already been debated at length and didn't carry the day. In the interest of keeping this discussion productive, it would be helpful to focus on what is actually new rather than revisiting ground that has already been covered. If something concrete has been missed – a specific statement in the article, a contradicting source – please bring it forward and provide your sources. That's what the disputed tag is for. Generalised dissatisfaction with the article is not enough. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The tag is there because enough editors still see problems with the article, as again can be seen in the TP section above this one. You have to understand that fatigue has mostly stalled this discussion, and prolonged discussion always favours the status quo. The only thing we seemed to agree on for years was that we don't agree. Forgive me for being blunt, but a deadlock like this is not so easily brushed aside. This article remains a syncretism of stories carried by ambiguous terminology and misleading translations. You're asking me for sources to show that a frankly hallucinated polity didn't exist. How am I meant to provide those, except by directing you to the excellent German article on the same subject, which repeatedly makes this clear and provides adequate sources for it? Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This sounds too much like the strawman fallacy to me. Over the years there's been plenty of users who provided sources in good faith, pointing out that the currently listed sources are misinterpreted, and that three other articles (East Francia; Holy Roman Empire; King of the Romans) already describe much of the same but with different words. And indeed, the German-language Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but German-language sources can be. Machinarium (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: A tag is not a substitute for AFD. If neither you nor anyone else is going to bring this to AFD, then disputing the existence of the article is no reason to keep the tag.

Assuming that you want to change rather than delete the article, perhaps you should give us a concrete proposal for some changes? Like a rewritten lead? Srnec (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I don't want this article deleted. There is room for an informative article here. My main problems remain 1) the title, which should not attempt to translate the real historical term "Regnum Teutonicum" into the anachronistic and misleading "Kingdom of Germany" 2) the handling of the article subject as a real historical polity, rather than a form of terminology for the German(ic) part of the Holy Roman Empire, as correctly done in the German language article 3) to a lesser extent the map, which I can't find a source for and which according to the map itself depicts Das Reich der Ottonen und Salier ("the realm of Ottonians and Salians"), thus being a case of synthesis when used to show the borders of a supposed "Kingdom of Germany". I maintain that we should try to follow the example of the well-sourced German-language article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Every objection raised here – the title, the framing, the map, the deadlock argument – comes down to the same thing: an assertion without a source.

On the title and framing: "kingdom of Germany" or "German kingdom" is a well-established term in English-language scholarship (as has been shown repeatedly). Pointing to a different-language Wikipedia article doesn't change that – you would have to provide evidence that a different term is more widely used in English-language sources. The claim that the subject should be treated solely as terminology is another unsourced assertion – the German-language Wikipedia article itself, including its choice of content and sources, isn't a reliable source here. Apart from that, the current English-language article mainly deals with terminology anyway. On the map: maps showing the borders of the kingdom exist in the literature, see for example this reliable source, pp. XXII–XXIII – by your own account this was the smallest of the three concerns anyway. On the deadlock mentioned in your comment above: the same broader points keep resurfacing without new evidence, which is why this stalls. I asked you directly to identify a specific sentence or passage in the article that is inaccurate; you haven't.

"How am I meant to show that a hallucinated polity didn't exist" makes the pattern explicit: it's not an argument, it’s an admission that no source has been provided. The article's terminology is already sourced; disputing it requires a competing source. Until one is on the table, there's no dispute – only the same assertion, repeated. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the 3 concerns, to me it seems like the the terminology and map concerns are really derivative from the concerning about the wording. If I understand correctly the article is seen as over-emphasizing the "reality" of the kingdom as distinct from the other parts of the HRE? As Srnec has mentioned, this could probably be handled by wording tweaks. The German WP possibly helps. Here is just a simple proposal.

• We now have: The Kingdom of Germany or the German Kingdom[a] was the mostly Germanic language-speaking East Frankish kingdom, which was formed by the Treaty of Verdun in 843. The king was elected, initially by the rulers of the stem duchies, who generally chose one of their own. After 962, when Otto I was crowned emperor, East Francia formed the bulk of the Holy Roman Empire, which also included the Kingdom of Italy and, after 1032, the Kingdom of Burgundy.
• What about: The Kingdom of Germany or the German Kingdom was a major part of the medieval Holy Roman Empire which began as the East Frankish kingdom formed by the Treaty of Verdun in 843, and continued to be distinguished sometimes from other parts of the later medieval empire such as the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy. It consisted of the mainly German-speaking stem duchies of Saxony, Franconia, Thuringia, Bavaria, Swabia and Lotharingia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. I do not mind switching the main definition to "was a major part of the medieval Holy Roman Empire which began as the East Frankish kingdom formed by the Treaty of Verdun in 843". I would not say "distinguished sometimes" since I think it is always distinguishable from Italy and Burgundy. Srnec (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

True. I think I was coming at it from the angle of some of the older discussions where it seems some would argue this Kingdom was not often mentioned at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde would that change help reduce your concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, yes, sorry for the late response. Describing it first and foremost as "a major part" of the HRE rather than "[an] East Frankish kingdom" indeed matches the more nuanced view on its status as a sub-polity as reflected in the rest of the article much better. I think it's definitely an improvement. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If I may chip in to the conversation, it's indeed a good idea to think of a new introduction that both sides of the debate are fine with, and I think it would be best if the intro immediately explains the complexity, but in a simple way so as not to confuse the reader. Although I was always on the opposed side of the debate, I've tried to draft the first two paragraph taking into account the views of the other side, and I'm curious if any of you disagree with the factual accuracy of any of the following lines: The Kingdom of Germany is a modern historical term for the mostly Germanic-speaking lands that formed the core of the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages. Although this realm was originally referred to as East Francia, historians have examined how it gradually acquired a different political identity following the end of the East Frankish Carolingian dynasty, alongside the kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy within the Empire. [...] The Kingdom of Germany was not a separate monarchy independent of the Empire. Its ruler was ordinarily the "King of the Romans" (Latin: Rex Romanorum), the elected ruler of the Holy Roman Empire and usually the future emperor. Although the title "King of the Germans" (Rex Teutonicorum) occasionally appeared in medieval sources, particularly in papal and foreign writings, imperial rulers themselves preferred Roman titles that emphasized their claim to universal imperial authority rather than a specifically German kingship. Similarly, Medieval documents only speak occasionally of a "Kingdom of Germany" (Regnum Teutonicum), with Kingdom of the Romans (Regnum Romanorum), or simply "German lands" (Latin: terra Theutonica, or terra Alemanniae) being more common. Machinarium (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in. We can do with some ping pong on this to get it right. Is that really simpler? I think one idea per sentence is a good aim if we want to aim at simple, and I'm not sure if language is or was a really primary part of the definition. Based on the history of debates I'm also not 100% sure the "modern historical term" resolves any controversies. Without trying to explain in a full way, obviously it is modern, because it is in English, but I think many editors are going to say there was a Latin term which this modern term can be seen as translating? But do we need that in the first sentence? I see this as a topic with real fuzziness and I honestly don't feel a strong connection to either side in the debate which has been here. I think drafts for these opening lines should allow some fuzziness where we know sensible debate is possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it won't work, but I'm afraid that just focusing on a single perfect sentence will only lead to more extended debates, and that it might be in all of our interest to come up with a different introduction alltogether that instantly conveys all viewpoints. Proponents do not seem to deny that the exact Latin name was rare and unofficial, which is where my hope lies. I think what this article as it stands now fails to take into account how many historians, and not just German ones, try to avoid speaking of a Kingdom of Germany. But because you can't cite something that is absent, there is undue weight on where historians do use the term. A scholar of German medieval historiography also pointed out: "even leaving aside the issue of the applicability of the term ‘state’, so vexed is the question of what to label this political entity during the middle ages that many historians prefer to use the Latin 'regnum Teutonicum' rather than an English or German equivalent, such as Germany or Deutschland, that carries with it too many anachronistic and misleading connotations." Machinarium (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the concern you raise in your first sentence is a good way to describe my concern about your draft. I think it is trying to cover too much and inevitably this is going to lead to concerns given the disagreements. What I was trying to do was to identify an uncontroversial core definition that leaves room for the different approaches to be laid out in the following paragraphs of the lede. I figure there is one because I don't think many people are literally calling for the article to be deleted. BTW Adding a Latin version of the term into the first line might make sense in this article.

The concerns have already been there for almost two decades now. And deleted is a big word, but ideally this page would be merged with East Francia with an introduction explaining the dynamic labelling. In my opinion, if we keep a seperate article that puts regnum Teutonicum at the center then, ideally speaking, the article should be there to explain when and why this Latin name was introduced in medieval sources, and explain how impopular it remained. Machinarium (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The main issue is that your conclusions and proposals go beyond what is supported by the literature.

The quotation you provided mentions some scholars' preference for the Latin term "regnum teutonicum" instead of terms such as "Germany" or "Deutschland". However, it does not support that the majority of historians generally avoids the terms "Kingdom of Germany" and "German kingdom", nor does it address or provide evidence for their usage in English-language historiography. Those additional conclusions are being inferred rather than established by the passage. Ironically, the extract you linked uses the term "German kingdom" ("The argument that the German kingdom was different from its neighbours […]").

One further point is unclear. The proposed merger with East Francia appears to extend that term beyond its standard chronological and historiographical scope. East Francia refers to the post-Verdun Carolingian realm, whereas the "Kingdom of Germany" or "German kingdom" is typically treated in the literature as a later historiographical label applied within the context of the Holy Roman Empire.

I'd also like to point out that your proposed lead gives undue prominence to one historiographical interpretation. It is not an accurate reflection of the English-language literature as a whole. For example, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History by Peter H. Wilson (2016) – one of the standard English-language works on the Holy Roman Empire – clearly treats the German kingdom as a distinct component of the Holy Roman Empire rather than merely a question of terminology, see for example:

In my view, Andrew's proposal remains the more proportionate approach. The lead should begin with a straightforward definition, while allowing historiographical nuance to be developed in the body. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer to the essence of the dispute, which is not that we dismiss sources, but that we interpret them differently. I myself also sometimes use the term "German kingdom" for the Kingdom north of the Alps, but that's as a convenient analytical label depending on context. The problem is with an introduction in which the partly anachronistic "Kingdom of Germany" is presented as though it were a fixed medieval constitutional designation. As is also explained in both English and German authors (I mention both because we don't have to limit ourselves to English-language literature), the rulers themselves generally identified through Roman royal and imperial titles (and earlier through Frankish ones), while the kingdom was referred to by a variety of names depending on period and context, and I think the lead should reflect that nuance.

As for Wilson, in the same book that you cite he also wrote: Unlike later nationalist historians, Otto and his successors never regarded the Empire as a German nation state. In their eyes, what made them worthy to be emperor was that they already ruled such extensive lands. By the early eleventh century it had become accepted that whoever was German king was also king of Italy and Burgundy, even without separate coronations. The title King of the Romans (Romanorum rex) was added from 1110 in a bid to assert authority over Rome and reinforce claims that only the German king could be emperor. Machinarium (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you're conflating two different questions: medieval usage and modern usage. Nobody disputes that medieval rulers primarily used Roman royal and imperial titles. The question is how a modern encyclopedia should introduce the subject. Historiographical nuance belongs in the body, not in the definition. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say that because the terminology is a significant part of the scholarship and central to understanding the subject, it also belongs in the lead (I take into account WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV). The purpose of the lead is not simply to provide a dictionary definition, but to introduce the topic and summarize the article's most important context. Machinarium (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In your draft, medieval nomenclature effectively becomes the organising principle of the lead, rather than the historical subject itself. This is not consistent with the purpose of a lead, which is to provide a clear and proportionate overview of the topic. Medieval naming practices can be included as context, but should be limited to brief explanation, with further detail reserved for the body of the article. There are, btw, many articles where the modern name doesn't match the historical terminology used at the time. Even so, it's not standard practice to introduce such subjects with phrasing like "is a modern historical term". JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It's fine with me that it's more brief, but I don't think the terminology is merely contextual, it's part of defining the topic itself. Sure, not every article with a modern title should begin "X is a modern historical term", but this article is unusual because the label itself is discussed in the scholarship. I was thinking that at least adding a line like The Kingdom of Germany is a modern term used by historians for... anywhere in the lead would help readers understand why its terminology has become the subject of discussion, and help explain (to those who happen to know) why German literature often uses very different terminology. This also reduces the likelihood of this same neutrality discussion recurring in the future, which should be in all our interests. Machinarium (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The Latin terms are also now given as equivalents to the article title. These are not modern terms. Also, placing the words you mentioned into the opening sentence would not at all explain to readers why the term is a subject of discussion, or different to German terminology. I think this addition's intentions would be unclear to readers, and in general I think this lead still has too many vague allusions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think many editors would see East Francia as a term used by historians in a more limited and early period, and it also implies a more limited geographical area (for example consider Lotharingia, and the new territories gained later in the eastern marches). I think suggest that as an editing principle we should only propose edits which take the current article's existence seriously, and not edits which are based on the idea that the article should not exist. I'm not saying such proposals can't be made, but that is not what this discussion is for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really think the existence of an article is really an issue, but that readers moving between East Francia, Holy Roman Empire, King of the Romans, and Kingdom of Germany encounter noticeably different descriptions of what is essentially the same development. Machinarium (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

In what way would these articles clash, especially if we change the opening line as proposed? Please be specific. The East Francia article currently says it is about a Carolingian entity which became the Kingdom of Germany. King of the Romans is clearly about a title.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll refrain from diving into the content of articles here, since then we start seperate discussions. I think the problem with your version of the intro is how it says East Francia and "Kingdom of Germany" were initially the same entity, but without explaining to the reader why there's two very different names; secondly the bit that says it was a major part of the Holy Roman Empire, even though Roman Kingdom and Empire were not always so clearly distinguishable; and thirdly, it clashes with a lot of specialist literature (German-language scholarship). This is why I proposed adding how it's a modern historical term, in an attempt fix the problem of non-neutrality from the start.Machinarium (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Please be a bit more careful. My proposal does not mention "East Francia". It only describes in normal English words how the origin of the topic of this article was in the creating of an eastern kingdom. I think the proposed wording avoids some possible controversy, by using descriptive words rather than presenting itself as using a jargon term. You second point is not clear. What is the problem? I think the wording is trying to leave such fuzziness open, and once again trying to avoid implying that there is consensus about technical terms. Your third point is the supposed clash with German scholarship which always seems to lead to circular discussions. In any case in the context of this particular draft text your remark is extremely vague and can't help anyone to see what changes might help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The circular discussions appear to have been enforced in the past by the idea that German scholarship belongs only on the German-language Wikipedia, but that's not true. And if German-language historiography, which makes up an essential part of the historiography on medieval Germany, seldom speaks of a "Kingdom of Germany", precisely because the question of how to label this polity is a vexed one, then I don't think the lead you proposed accurately reflects the literature as a whole. I'm happy to gather relevant translations from German historians if that would help move the discussion forward. As for "changes that could help", that's exactly why I proposed another version of the introduction. Do you think that the first two sentences of it are factually incorrect? Which parts? Machinarium (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that you need to give more concrete remarks about the draft. You are being far too vague and making comments about there having been comments and how there could be other comments. That's not practical. Is my draft an improvement at all? Let's try to make some kind of practical step forward even if it is not perfect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, it's an improvement. The structure works well and it introduces the topic in a way that is easy to follow. The relationship to the wider Holy Roman Empire is also handled in a more straightforward way than before.

The only small point I would still suggest is whether the first sentence could be tightened slightly to make the subject definition a bit more direct before moving into the historical context.

As a minor alternative, one possible wording could be:

The Kingdom of Germany or the German Kingdom was a major part of the medieval Holy Roman Empire, originating from the East Frankish kingdom formed by the Treaty of Verdun in 843. It formed the core political and territorial base of the Empire and, alongside the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy (from 1032), was one of its constituent realms. […] JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

So are you just asking to add that bit about being a "constituent realm" or is there another difference?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think that should be included and would also be consistent with the articles on the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Burgundy, and the Holy Roman Empire. It might also be worth highlighting that it politically formed the core of the empire, though I'm open to discussion on that point and on whether the long opening sentence should be split into two.

Aside from that, I think your draft works well, and I wouldn't suggest any further changes. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This might sound somewhat arbitrary but now that Prinsgezinde has answered I think I should put a simple version in the article. My reasoning is that most counter proposals are tweaks, which so far all tend to add complications, and agreeing about those is going to take longer. (Or might be impossible?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Further refinements can potentially be discussed later. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes more work is needed in the lead and elsewhere but my own position for now is that we should try to keep the opening few sentences as simple and uncontroversial as possible. For the record what I see in the rest of the lead is that this article has a lot of clutter that goes off topic (or at least doesn't make its relevance clear in an orderly way).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is the lead I've now been a bit brutal to, just in case people things which need to be saved. However, I think the clutter, if it was important, might need to be in the body, not the lead. Long footnotes are not good style in Wikipedia, and footnotes and citations in the lead also aren't normally a sign of a good WP article. In this case we also literally have long footnotes within long footnotes:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC) I have nowiki'ed the 2 biggest footnotes, so everyone can see their mark-up contents.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Germany or the German Kingdom [1] was the mostly Germanic language-speaking East Frankish kingdom, which was formed by the Treaty of Verdun in 843. The king was elected, initially by the rulers of the stem duchies, who generally chose one of their own. After 962, when Otto I was crowned emperor, East Francia formed the bulk of the Holy Roman Empire, which also included the Kingdom of Italy and, after 1032, the Kingdom of Burgundy.

[1] {{efn|{{langx|la|regnum Teutonicorum}} 'kingdom of the Germans', {{lang|la|regnum Teutonicum}} 'German kingdom',<ref>The Latin expression {{lang|la|regnum Teutonicum}} corresponds to German-language {{lang|de|deutsches Reich}} in literal translation; however, in German usage, the term {{lang|de|[[:de:deutsches Reich|deutsches Reich]]}} is reserved for the German national state of 1871–1945, see: Matthias Springer, "{{lang|de|{{lang|la|Italia docet}}: Bemerkungen zu den Wörtern {{lang|la|francus}}, {{lang|la|theodiscus}} und {{lang|la|teutonicus}}}}" in: Dieter Hägermann, Wolfgang Haubrichs, Jörg Jarnut (eds.), {{lang|de|Akkulturation: Probleme einer germanisch-romanischen Kultursynthese in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter}}, Walter de Gruyter (2013), 68–98 ([https://books.google.com/books?id=JW0jAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73 73ff.]).</ref> {{lang|la|regnum Alamanie}} "kingdom of Germany",<ref name="Scales">{{cite book |author=Len Scales |title=The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245–1414 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qICADV-G-EC&pg=PA179 |access-date=5 April 2020 |date= 2012 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-57333-7 |page=177 }}</ref> {{langx|de|Deutsches Königreich}}}}

Like medieval England and medieval France, medieval Germany consolidated from a conglomerate of smaller tribes, nations or polities by the High Middle Ages. [2] The term rex teutonicorum ('king of the Germans') first came into use in Italy around the year 1000. It was popularized by the chancery of Pope Gregory VII during the Investiture Controversy (late 11th century), perhaps as a polemical tool against Emperor Henry IV. In the 12th century, in order to stress the imperial and transnational character of their office, the emperors began to employ the title rex Romanorum (king of the Romans) on their election.

[2]<ref>"a conglomerate, an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent... {{lang|la|gentes}} [peoples] and {{lang|la|regna}} [kingdoms]." Gillingham (1991), p. 124, who also calls it "a single, indivisible political unit throughout the middle ages." He uses "medieval Germany" to mean the tenth to fifteenth centuries for the purposes of his paper. Robinson, "Pope Gregory", p. 729.</ref>

The Archbishop of Mainz was ex officio arch-chancellor of Germany, as his colleagues the Archbishop of Cologne and Archbishop of Trier were, respectively, arch-chancellors of Italy and Burgundy. These titles continued in use until the end of the empire, but only the German chancery actually existed. The Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, Magdeburg and Salzburg also claimed to be primate of Germania. Distinct titulature for Germany, Italy and Burgundy, which traditionally had their own courts, laws, and chanceries, gradually dropped from use as the King/Emperor's influence outside of Germany waned and the German kingdom came to be identified with the Holy Roman Empire. Reigns were either dated from the day a ruler was elected king (Philip of Swabia, Rudolf of Habsburg) or crowned king (Otto IV, Henry VII, Louis IV, Charles IV). The election day became the starting date permanently with Sigismund. Throughout the Middle Ages, the King of Germany was known as "King of the Romans" from his election as king until the Pope crowned him Emperor in Rome.

References

This new introduction is still not neutral in my opinion. There is no mention how any of the names first appeared during the Investiture Controversy, was initially derogatory, and remained impopular with actual rulers who prefered Roman names and titles, with "German" identity only beginning to take shape in the 13th/14th century. Entire books and studies have been dedicated to this topic, so it's not just an insignificant detail. We could easily explain with a sentence or a footnote that it's a modern historiographical term and is anachronistic. In parallel, I would feel the same way about Kingdom of Italy if it included a period where the kingdom was still known as the Kingdom of the Lombards. Also, on another note, the current listed Latin translations are incorrect — if we show those names between brackets than that suggests a literal translation, but neither regnum Teutonicorum, nor regnum Teutonicum actually translates to "Kingdom of Germany". Regnum Teutonicum does translate to "German Kingdom" (or "Teutonic Realm"), but Regnum Teutonicorum = Kingdom of the Germans (or "Realm of the Teutons"). Maybe leaving out the Latin translations would be better than to provide wrongful ones. They could also be added, with an explanation, as a footnote. Machinarium (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Machinarium: you've replaced the disputed flag despite the progress made in the discussion so far. I strongly suspect this is now one person who for some reason just wants to keep this going forever, but I'm willing to give a little bit more time to this before we just start voting. Please remember we can't really ever achieve perfection. We are trying to get a version which is good enough to avoid strong controversy. This should be possible.

First, it seems part of your turning against my proposal is because I have now included the Latin terms, which as you know was a response to your most recent concerns. That makes it look like you don't want clarity. I think you are playing a word game now. I will play one round, but I won't go further. The modern English term "Kingdom of Germany" in the period we are discussing is in fact a fixed term, a group of words which have their own separate meaning when used in a certain way. It does in fact translate medieval terms too. When we stick the words together and looked at the fixed phrases they represent the same "thing", and that thing existed. The game you are playing is to pull individual words out of the term and then to note with horror that the words on their own don't work exactly the same in German, Latin and English. This is simply how languages work. This is normal and it should not normally cause this level of drama. Of course this is a modern English term, but we do not need to say that and it would be confusing if we did. So in summary the term "Kingdom of Germany" is NOT anachronistic, or at least you will never get consensus about that.

The second part of your confusing word game is that you are worrying about the titles of kings, when this article and its title are not about the titles of kings. Titles have their own lives, separate to the names of lordships. They need separate discussion. We can't explain all possible confusions in the first sentence - not even about the article's real subject, let alone related subjects. We have to control our urges and spread the explanations out. The first sentence is only for telling everyone what the article is about, and not for resolving all possible confusions.

Putting discussions into a permanent spin is easier than getting them out of it. Please now give a practical proposal, and let everyone judge it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Please relax, your sudden change of tone is unnecessary. The tag has been up since March 2017, but will disappear soon, probably whether I like it or not, but I don't want to be completely ignored either — I do have legitimate arguments and you removed the tag while we were still in the middle of discussions. I've remained civil, and everytime I noticed that my proposals were not popular I tried to come up with an alternative or a compromise. And no I'm not playing a word game, I said that the comment about the errorous Latin translations was a side note, it's not the reason for any tag, you misunderstood me. I made an actual proposal — a footnote at the start which gives the reader details about the terms used. This is also commonly done in many other articles. I can draft an accurate one that I think you can live with, but then I'd like to know for sure that's not going to get ignored and dismissed a priori. Machinarium (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. It's completely obvious that today's standard English terms are modern terms. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Machinarium: my apologies but I don't want to spend the rest of my life in a circular discussion, which is what this looks like. Putting efn's into the first line is a habit on Wikipedia which went out of control and I think we are trying to avoid it now. When we need long discussions about terminology then the new way to go (as I understand it) is to add a terminology section under the lead. This is much easier for readers and editors. Footnotes are to be avoided completely in leads, and long footnotes should also really be avoided if it is easy to avoid them. I've stated my approach, which is that the opening line should only contain the uncontroversial core explanation of what the article is about. I also want the Latin terms in bold to avoid any doubts that our English multi-word phrases a "fixed" phrases meant to translate a medieval concept which had Latin equivalents. How can we really move forward? I fear very much that you are going to keep bringin up side issues, and this conversation will go in circles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: It's okay. I'm not the one who started this though. The tag was initially removed by JeanClaudeN1 with the claim that the users who were disputing this article's neutrality the past two decades did so "without reliable sources" and because of a "generalised dissatisfaction with the article". But I know that's false, because I'm unfortunately old enough to remember those old discussions. Anyway, I do not agree that the opening line now contains an "uncontroversial core explanation". Though your edits are in good faith, they did not take away the main concerns that have been voiced here over the years. I think the article can quite easily be stabilized, not just for now, but also in a way that will prevent future discussions. This can be done by very briefly explaining in the lead that we're dealing with a historiographical term, and by mentioning something related to the names used by contemporaries. I only proposed it as a footnote because my proposal to put this in the actual lead was not well received by you. I'm fine with either.--Machinarium (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Are the Latin equivalents only "historiographical" terms also? (You also used the term anachronistic I think. Are they anachronistic?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The Latin terms for Germans were not anachronistic from when they first appeared onwards (late eleventh century), but while they appeared they remained rare at the time, especially compared to other terms for the same polities/titles (Frankish and Roman ones), so by themselves they were not anachronistic, but other Latin terms were far more popular. For example, Rex Romanorum (King of the Romans) was far more popular than Regnum Teutonicorum (King of the Germans). The latter would typically be used in a hostile way — to tell a ruler he was merely King of the Germans and not suitable to be Roman Emperor. This was the same with Regnum Teutonicum versus the more popular Regnum Romanum, Regnum, or simply terra Theutonica for the actual Teutonic realm — The papals used Regnum Teutonicum to describe the king as merely a regional king rather than a universal Roman ruler. What may have also played a part back then was the memory of ancient Germani as the "barbarian" enemies of the Roman Empire, while the Roman Empire were the ones they wanted to be. Hence the Holy Roman Empire was formed and not the "Holy German Empire".Machinarium (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

But rex and regnum are different words. Aren't you comparing apples and pears here? We can't say "King of X" was a more common term for "Kingdom of Y"? Was there a kingdom of Rome involved? Anyway, putting that aside, you agree that the two Latin terms I've inserted as being what this article is about are neither anachronistic nor purely terms which modern history writers use. Correct? So then the next question would be how we translate those normally into modern English (because this is a Wikipedia in modern English). According to me those terms have standard modern English translations, which aren't particularly ambiguous. (There are not many German kingdoms in history. We don't have the problems which the word Reich brings, either.) Normally, if we have a simple standard translation for an ancient or foreign term (Roman Empire, Kingdom of France etc), we don't need to add qualifications about it being in modern English (and noone would call those terms anachronistic or purely "historiographical"). Of course many such terms have lots of books written about them, because we can always find possible confusions coming from such terms, but our WP articles often have terminology or name sections these days, often just after the lead. It can't all be in the first sentence., and making the opening overloaded will not be the best way to alert readers to potential confusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, yes there was also talk of a "Roman Kingdom", with regnum Romanum and regnum Romanorum appearing in contemporary sources, though not clearly as the boundary between German kingdom and imperial kingship was often deliberately blurred (see Len Scales, p. 177). Regarding your second question: The Latin terms you inserted were still anachronistic in the first centuries, then German Kingdom (regnum Teutonicum or regnum Alimanie) sometimes appeared, initially by opponents of the Germans, and alongside more popular names. The correct Latin translation regnum Germaniae also made an appearence, though remained especially rare and in different context. Btw, you mentioned Kingdom of France, and that article literally starts with "Kingdom of France is the historiographical name". There's many other examples on Wikipedia where that's the case . And Holy Roman Empire starts with a footnote and is also not called "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" from the start. Machinarium (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Regnum Teutonicum is now given as one of the names at the head of the article, so that should be acceptable to you. You did not answer my key question which is whether that term has a modern translation, so I suppose you accept my answer. Therefore if I understand correctly your only concern now comes down to your proposal that (1) there should be a footnote and (2) you want the article heading described right at the start as an "historiographical term". My position on these two points:

(1) Instead of a footnote we should have a terminology section after the lead. I think that is a less academic, less book-imitating, and easier to read option on the internet. So that is a formatting issue.

(2ai) "Historiographical" is an ugly "insider" word which excludes normal readers and can easily by replaced by normal English terms. I always as a policy argue against such wordings (not only in WP) because my aim when writing is communication, and not establishing my status, or trying to exclude people with smaller vocabularies.

(2aii) The combination "historiographical term" is IMHO not commonly used by native speakers. I think that it is a term you will mainly find on Wikipedia, and online blogs, and texts written by non-native speakers.

(2b) We should not normally open an article by saying that something is a term for something. Such words are unnecessary and poor style. The type of case where we do something like this is when a word has several meanings, and we want to disambiguate which one we are talking about. Then we might say "In medieval history, X was..." (NOT X is a word for...). I would not be strongly opposed to that, but honestly...

(2c) This is NOT really a case where there are multiple meanings? The Kingdom of Germany is not a term which is used for lots of different kingdoms? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I had already answered your question, and just repeated the translations again, but it seems you skimmed over it all. So I'll repeat, Regnum Teutonicum translates to either "German Kingdom" or "Teutonic Realm", and Regnum Teutonicorum to "Kingdom of the Germans" or "Realm of the Teutons". And no, a neutral introduction is not my "only concern" as you now phrase it — I've dropped many other concerns exactly because I wanted to reach a compromise and move on. A neutral intro is the bare minimum. If that's just a small formatting issue to you then I don't understand why you are so conservative about even changing that. And what do you mean with "terminology section after the lead"? If the terminology itself makes up a significant part of the article (and it should because entire books and studies have been dedicated to this topic) then WP:LEAD instructs us to summarize that too. (2c) Indeed not. "Germany" is though. Machinarium (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

In the first sentence and last sentence you are once again translating individual words, and that's a waste of time. [ADDED: It is not what I asked you.] When you translate between languages there are fixed phrases which can't just be translated by translating each individual word. The terminology section would be a quick primer on the basic terms, like I suppose you envisage with your efn, and not replace the longer sections which are currently in the article. I am saying that whatever you want to put in an efn I'd like to fit either in the lead or in a special section just under the lead, not in a complex system of footnotes. This is a website and not a book. In any case you are not disputing any facts, so the tag should surely be removed, right? Maybe you could already draft the efn you are thinking of and post it here, in order to make this discussion more concrete.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what else you asked for. Also, I did not suggest a complex system of footnotes, just one footnote if you don't want to explain it otherwise in the lead. Also, it appears you confused "first paragraph" with "lead". As for the tag, things are still not explained neutrally here at least. On another topic, you just made another change to the lead to say that "German" was spoken in all areas of this realm, even though for years it said "Germanic-languages", which was more neutral due to the existence of other west germanic languages. Machinarium (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I was also thinking about the languages definition, but this has been like this for a while apparently. Personally I am not too concerned with "German" in the sense that we are talking about dialects which would have been called German throughout the Middle Ages. I'd personally prefer to avoid "West Germanic" because it is a technical term and because technically it is not quite the right term (too broad). The best approach should also in any case be fitted together with whatever terminological explanation we give.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It was previously simply Germanic-speaking, the best word to be used here I think because it can encompass many different languages and dialects. Machinarium (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the meanings of the individual terms here is a topic I know reasonably well and I think they might be worth explaining, but please not in an efn. And also NOT in the first paragraph. We simply can not put everything in the first paragraph.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure we can, it's very easy to phrase this more neutrally and accurately. I can propose something new, but you have to give me a chance then. Machinarium (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. There is no rush on this. Please explain what you are proposing should be in the extra explanation (put aside the footnote question for now and explain what you want in it). I think that is the best way to move forward on this point, because it is not clear to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've made some bold-ish tweaks because I thought they might already improve the situation a bit more, or even resolve your concerns. But let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I started writing a lead from scratch and this is how far I got. Leaving it here for your consideration:

The kingdom of Germany (Latin: regnum Teutonicum) was a medieval political community comprising the Germanic-speaking peoples and lands roughly between the Alps and the North Sea, stretching from the Rhine basin to the Slavic-speaking lands in the east. It was much larger than modern Germany. Formed in the breakup of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century, the German kingdom developed an elective monarchy. From 962, the German kings claimed the imperial title in the West and with it a claim to universal jurisdiction. Germany came to dominate its southern neighbours, Italy and Burgundy, in the 10th and 11th centuries, respectively. This union of kingdoms under an elected emperor is what came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire.
Beginning in the late 11th century, the Investiture Contest pitted the claims of the German king-emperors against those of the Papacy. In response, the kings adopted the title rex Romanorum (king of the Romans) to emphasise the imperial and transnational character of their office. Reference to Germany would not be found in the royal titulature until 1508, but Germany retained its distinct character and laws.

One thing that I think may be difficult to get across but is important is that, chronologically, the German kingdom precedes the HRE as we know it, but comes after the imperial title, which goes back to Charlemagne. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Srnec. I hope you don't mind that I outdented to give some room for Machinarium to reply about his concerns. Notes:

• I was also thinking that we might have too many alternatives terms at the top, and the 2 you have (1 English, 1 Latin) seems better, only I am not sure if this would raise any concerns among other editors. We could however install that aspect if no one objects. [ADDED: I boldly made this adjustment for now]
• Your way of "defining" in the opening is both geographical and linguistic, but in both cases you exclude Lotharingia which includes for example Trier and Cologne. (So how is it bigger than modern Germany?) Also your wording makes it almost sound like the kingdom was set-up to be linguistically pure?
• You also put it in the category of "political community" is presumably meant to be pretty unspecific and flexible, but it leads you to the problem that you can't find a way to explain when it started and ended, and how it relates to other entities. From the various discussions on this talk page I think its constitutional definition is in this case actually not what's clear, because it was hardly a government at all at some points it was not well-defined in a constitutional sense. I think this is connected to the theme of implying that there was a neat sequence from East Francia, to Kingdom, to HRE, which seems problematic.
• Your wording implies that the kingdom ended, when it became the HRE, but I think trying to define that is opening that can of worms, partly once again because it wasn't always a clear and distinct political entity. It clearly continued to be referred to, so in a sense it continued to exist? I can't see any clear starting and ending points for this kingdom, and that seems to be what keeps getting us stuck in the past. To me that implies that we need a different approach to defining it, which does not demand an exact starting and ending point?

FWIW the proposed solution I've been using is to describe it as the original core territories of the HRE, which continued to be seen as a distinct core part of the HRE. I think it was built up not by looking at languages but sticking together the stem duchies. In terms of contrasting it to East Francia, I think it is what East Francia became within the bigger HRE as it evolved. I felt that approach was allowing for different perspectives, and trying to zoom in what is most clear and least controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It included parts of Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, so bigger than modern Germany even if we did not consider Lorraine and Alsace. There has never been a 'linguistically pure' kingdom in history, but the term regnum Teutonicum refers, I believe, to language. (Unlike 'Germany', which is geographical.) It is not possible to precisely define the territory of any kingdom in a single sentence. But the German kingdom's Germanicity was defining. From the Oaths of Strasbourg to the name regnum Teutonicum, it's what made it distinct.

I don't see how political community makes it difficult to define a beginning. Verdun, as in the current lead, is correct. The end is inherently problematic however you define it. The HRE was "king in Germania" until 1806. I certainly do not believe in an East Francia–Germany–HRE sequence. So let me lay out my position: The imperium of the Carolingians included several regna. In 843, the imperium was divided like the Roman empire of old. The eastern division, which we usually call East Francia but could also call Germania (as the Fulda annalist did), developed its own political community as a consequence of the civil war and of the stability of Louis the German's reign. Perhaps it could have fallen apart, but it didn't. It survived a child monarch and the end of the Carolingian dynasty without a hitch. After coming to dominate Italy, its ruler took the imperial title that had been associated with Italy (and with multi-regnal rule). By the end of the 12th century, the 'empire' had more reality than the 'kingdoms', although nobody had any trouble distinguishing Germany, Italy and Burgundy as political communities with their own legal traditions and in theory their own crowns. I would never equate Germany and the HRE or suggest that one evolved into the other.

My problem with defining it as a part of the Empire is that implies the priority of the Empire, which is almost backwards. The imperial title may have priority, but the Empire as we usually conceive it, as a territorial entity with more or less well defined borders, evolved from the union of kingdoms. I don't think the "stem" duchies got stuck together, I think they evolved within the East Frankish political community. There are no stem duchies in 843. They are a later development, although you could argue that the basic regions had identities going back long before that, which is true enough, but that's no different from West Francia, where in fact the regional differences were arguably more pronounced, hence the weakness of the French kingdom down to the time of Philip II. Srnec (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: thanks, I find this helpful. In note form: Its bigger than Germany if it includes Lotharingia, which means defining the Rhine as the border doesn't match. I agree language was a cause of the naming, as per my recent lead tweaks. It was not however necessarily part of the political definition of anything. The coming together into a kingdom happened first and the naming was, I think later? It was part of the Empire so we have to find a way to deal with that. Your point about the stem duchies sounds right to me, which perhaps means my version has been a bit simplified in that regard. You would never equate Germany to the HRE, but your draft used the word Germany.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I intended by "Rhine basin" to indicate that it included much of the Rhine basin, but it could be worded better. Yes, the kingdom was not created on a linguistic or ethnic basis. But that it had a linguistic character different from other parts of the Carolingian Empire was apparent from the start. You would never equate Germany to the HRE, but your draft used the word Germany. I don't know what you mean. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: When you say "the German kingdom precedes the HRE as we know it", you believe this is the case because Henry the Fowler and Otto the Great were Saxon-born kings, correct? The problem for me is, I don't think we can say their corronation is a fixed start date of a Kingdom of Germany because in the literature they are also known as the king of East Francia, and that's in line with all the contemporary sources and their titles. Machinarium (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with where anyone was born. I don't think the coronations of Henry and Otto hold any significance in this discussion at all. I refer you to my statement in example text in response to Andrew above. The qualifier "as we know it" is key. I think the imperial title, the empire in the sense of imperium, begins with Charlemagne, but the empire that we call "Holy Roman" is a later evolution of that imperium with well defined borders. It can be said to begin with Otto's coronation after acquiring rule over Germany and Italy. I have no problem calling the eastern kingdom formed at Verdun 'Germany' from the get-go. Charles the Fat distinguished his rule in Germania, Gallia and Italia. 'Germany' has been a name for the kingdom from the beginning. Srnec (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, that essentially comes down to calling East Francia — Germany. But then why not simply mention on the page intro for East Francia that it's "also known as Germany"? I fail to understand why, for the pre-Imperial period, there's an added value to have two articles that describe the same polity, with one using "Francia" and the other "Germany". Isn't that like creating an additional copy of the West Francia page, but with the title and article-specific vocabulary changed to Kingdom of Gaul? Machinarium (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Because Germany did not become the HRE suddenly in 962. Or at any later date. It was not absorbed into it or anything like that. 'East Francia' is just a name for the first phase of the kingdom of Germany, in the Carolingian period and its afterglow. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

And by the same logic, you could also say that 'kingdom of Germany' is just a name for the later phase of East Francia? Machinarium (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Otto of Freising uses both 'East Frankish' and 'Teutonic' terminology, but by his time the former was academic. Srnec (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

About that tag...

I don't want to ignore the discussion above which is now essentially about wordings and formats, but I am starting this new section just to remind everyone of the original question. The tag on this article says that "This article's factual accuracy is disputed". I am not seeing any debates about that at all. I can see that the article might have many problems, and I fear that this has partly been because of the unattractive state of the article with the big tag on it, and no clear direction in the text, but the existing tag does not seem to be the right one, surely? Does anyone have a serious objection to removing it? I think we need to try to turn a corner.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll wait a day or 3 (by which I mean no exact deadline), but I intend to delete the tag again soon, unless someone mentions a concern that is truly relevant to the tag.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I had the same feeling that there's no solid reason to keep the tag on the article. That's also why I asked for specific inaccuracies to be pointed out. In any case, the discussion above doesn't justify the tag. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ideally, we'd fill out the article first and then finish the lead, but nobody wants to devote that much effort to an article that is permanently tagged for accuracy. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

That approach can probably work best when it is obvious what an article is going to contain, but I don't think that's always the case. I think working on the opening lines is sometimes also a way of reviewing what it is about, and setting the direction. If we can get a clear agreement about that then I think it helps to make it easier to imagine working on the body. Clearly the existence of that tag was strongly connected to unhappiness about the lead? In any case, do you agree that this tag should be removed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any confirmation that there are really still factual concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I do agree that it's a fairly strong tag, and one that comes across at this point as there having been no progress at all for the last 9 years, which isn't true. If someone wishes to remove it then I won't challenge it. Do you think the Template:Lead rewrite tag would be appropriate? The lead has long been a large part of these discussions and more importantly, is actively being discussed. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Having already been changed a fair bit is it really still controversial enough to require the article to be tagged for that? And if we are making progress shouldn't we wait before tagging the whole article? Technically we don't need to immediately put a new tag in just because we resolved the old one. The default situation on most articles is no such tag.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. It now starts with "In medieval History", even though this is a fringe view unless we exclude German historians who generally don't describe a "Kingdom of Germany" (they are generally quite careful with anachronisms). Then it describes the "Kingdom of Germany" as a continious entity from 843 onwards even though there's no consensus from historians that the kingdom had become "German" that year -- even many anglophone historians distinguish between East Francia and a later German kingdom. An accurate introduction would explain that the "Kingdom of Germany" is a modern anglophone historiographical term applied retrospectively, and that beginning and/or end dates are already a matter of scholary interpetration rather than universally agreed historical events. Machinarium (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

First, is this really a major dispute about facts, or is it just about your personal wording concern that we should say that the term is modern English in the opening line? Second, isn't this the same concern which has been going in circles here for a very long time without creating any consensus with other editors that there is a real problem? Of course "Kingdom of Germany" is a modern English term. However, it translates a Latin term which is certainly not "anachronistic", and not considered "fringe" by any academics. I've tried to make that clear in our lead now, and I think academic authors do it the same way. The article also clearly does NOT say that "the kingdom had become "German" in 843. So your remarks are very confusing! In any case I see no major dispute about facts, and I don't think you're responses are clearly about the tag, as requested. Is there any reason to keep the current tag on the article? I presume not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

bold but small deletion of small paragraph from lead about regnal years

I deleted this, because I just don't see how this fits in this article: Reigns were either dated from the day a ruler was elected king (Philip of Swabia, Rudolf of Habsburg) or crowned king (Otto IV, Henry VII, Louis IV, Charles IV). The election day became the starting date permanently with Sigismund. Throughout the Middle Ages, the King of Germany was known as "King of the Romans" from his election as king until the Pope crowned him Emperor in Rome. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think later continued to be distinguished is poor wording at that point in the lead. The only chronological indicator is 'medieval', so 'later' does not make sense. Srnec (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec: I removed the word later, but there is probably a better way. I see your point, although the word original also gives sequence information. Not sure why you've posted in this thread? Maybe you could move it, and if you do please feel free to move my reply.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

What is Staufer?

The term Staufer is used 4 times but never introduced, defined or explained. ~2026-41948-82 (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is the same as Hohenstaufen (the name of a dynasty), which I think is the more common term in general English, if not in some specific fields. I've converted the term and added a wikilink.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)