Talk:Pepin the Short/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sites Sourced

What sources name two daughters named Redburga and Bertha? I've only heard of Gisela, who isn't mentioned here.--Cuchullain 08:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This stuff about "the short" vs. "the younger" needs to be explained. I mean, was he really short, or just young, or both?

The German page says he was both younger and curt--that is, short in his speech mannerisms. 87.123.34.246 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The French page says he was short of stature, which is the traditionnal explanation. "le Bref" could very well refer to speech as well (and would be more in line with modern usage, although I cannot testify on old french usage). --Virtualsim 19:54, January 3, 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

It is hard to tell what I did in the history of the article, but I read the whole thing for grammar and other technical aspects. I also added a few small parts (death of Grifo, Donation of Pepin) and reworded some sentences. Most significantly, I believe, are the phrases I removed and the reasons.

I removed the reference to the popes in danger from the Moslems. I believe that threat is still in the future for the mid eight century papacy. The Lombards were the prime threat.

I removed the sentence "During his reign, Pippin's conquests gave him more power than anyone since the days of King Clovis." I believe that his power, as with that of almost every king before him (excepting the rois fainéants), far exceeded Clovis'. I think it would be better to say that his position in the Carolingian dynasty is as that of Clovis in the Merovingian, but I haven't added that yet.

Finally, I removed some phrases in the Legacy section which I believed tilted towards POV. That is, his greatness relative his father and son is subjective and it is best to merely state that the general perception (both scholarly and more popularly) of hims is that of a lesser man between two greaters.

It could use a little more expansion still. Srnec 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Srnec OUTSTANDING WORK, thanks! I have another book ordered on the great Carolingians, Pippin among them, and will add more. BUT your edits are outstanding, which is why i sought your help. His article was pitiful - he is really ignored for the most part, since he is sandwiched between two real historical giants, but he deseves better. And you are dead on the money on the fact that his power, as with that of almost every king before him (excepting the rois fainéants), far exceeded Clovis'. Old Windy Bear THAANKS AGAIN!

i don't understnad why he was named "pepin the SHORT" that is what i am trying to find out for my essay!{subst:unsigned|207.206.136.8}}

A good question. The French WP (an FA) says: Pépin le Bref, doit son surnom à sa petite taille. This article says different. An eighteen year reign and a fifty-odd year lifespan are not "short" in any sense. Gauvard, La France au Moyen Âge (p. 79) says "... whom the historians called 'the Short', doubtless because of his small size ..." Why else would he be called "the Short" ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See the references. It's a mistranslation, he was not short. Mistranslation of what, I am not sure. Srnec 01:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pepin WAS short as every French schoolboy learns in school. I don't know where this mistranslation idea got started.--CTfrog 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Younger. His (great-?)grandfather was the elder one. As I read this the article already clarifies this.

Place and cause of death seem to be missing. Marcov 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Name standardization

OK, I assume we won't be able to fix the name all across Wikipedia, but can we at least agree on a single spelling of the name for the article? Almost every place I have ever seen the name before, it has been "Pepin", including in "Donation of Pepin", mentioned on this Talk page. So, my preference would be to move the text and the redirects to "Pepin the Short/Younger/III" (pick one, of course!). If the consensus is to stick with the German "Pippin" (despite his being the Frankish king of a domain that mainly encompassed Gaul), then I guess we'll do that. The last paragraph, however, has the complete bastardization, "Peppin".

Secondly, almost every link I found from his parents' and childern's pages uses the title, "the Short", despite the big to-do in this article about that being a mistranslation. Again, "fixing" all of Wikipedia may not be possible, or maybe desirable, but I think his immediate family members' articles, at least, should have the right name and title.

Mdotley 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will be kind enough to provide a concrete citation for this translation of his name? I have always known him as Pepin the Short and this kind of assertion really deserves a concrete basis. Preferably something in print, a book or an article in one of the archaelogical journals. --128.61.52.60 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could provide a list of sources if I can be bothered to trawl through them again but I am very surprised to find that the article is called Pippin the Younger as my notes, culled from many sources, have the name as Pepin the Short. He was Frankish, born in Belgium, and therefore surely French as we would understand it; definitely not Deutsch anyway. My vote would be for Pepin. Has Pippin been promoted by fans of Tolkien, I wonder? --Einar 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be bothered :) I am not au fait with the history of the French language, or whether what ol' Pip spoke was closer to either Old French or Old Low Franconian; the WP articles are not really clear with the timelines. Again, tho', that's not totally relevant; the Danish king Knud was called by his Anglo-Saxon subjects Cnut, but we call him Canute. So the question which should be addressed is what is he most commonly called now (WP:COMMONNAME), not what he was called back in tha day. Cheers. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The name "Pippin the Younger" is ambiguous, as it is sometimes used to refer to Pippin of Heristal. "the Short" may be a mistranslation, but it has caught on and is the most common English form. "Pepin" is also more common than "Pippin" and I think I see a majority in favour of this based on the talk pages of similarly-named figures, though it would be an improvement if the page were moved to Pippin the Short. Srnec 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with "the Short," especially as the French Wikipedia calls him Pepin le Bref, and states "[il] doit son surnom à sa petite taille," which I translate as "he owes his surname to his small frame." I'm agnostic as to Pepin or Pippin.

Please check whether Pippin or Pepin is more widely used. My Google search gave "Pippin" used by Britannica, NNDB, and New York Times; "Pepin" for Columbia Encyc and Catholic Encyc. I prefer Pippin myself, but abide by WP:COMMONNAME for article naming. The moniker "the Short" seems to be a no-brainer in the commonality dept. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 10:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

According to both a raw Google search, and a Google Scholar search, "Pepin the Short" is much more frequently used than "Pippin the Short". This article has been renamed from Pippin the Younger to Pepin the Short as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 07:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"he owes his surname to his small frame." - Actually, Pepin was a big man, almost as big as his son Charles. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pepijn de Korte, Pippin de Jéngeren, &c

Why would we favour Pepin le Bref being in the intro? Was he born in France? No. Was he king of France? No. The French name is no more relevant than the Dutch, German, Low German, Letzeburgisch, or Walloon one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Was he crowned in France? Yes. Did he rule in France? Yes. Is he buried in the French royal tombs as a King of France? Yes. Did he rule over the people who became the French, and the state that became France? Yes. Michael Sanders 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the Walloon name different from the French? At any rate, I think giving the German and French makes sense, since, as King of the Franks, he was king of the state which was the precursor to both France and Germany. john k (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Walloon is almost certainly different, yes. Anyway, I wasn't arguing for its inclusion, but for the exclusion of the modern French name. I feel like I might be channeling Rex or, more flatteringly, Patrick Geary (from the intro to The Myth of Nations): Merovingian Gaul and Carolingian Francia are not France or Germany or any other modern state. Why would we want to suggest the idea that Pippin was "king of France" or "king of Germany"? I don't believe it helps our reader and I can see how it might mislead them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To include the French and German forms of his name in the introduction is not suggesting that he was 'king of France' or 'King of Germany'; it's just giving the forms of his name in the modern forms of the languages of the people he ruled. It's a basic courtesy to the reader, to allow the reader to be told without requiring effort the form of the name in the other relevant languages. Michael Sanders 01:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The people he ruled are long dead. And he ruled many more regions than just those in modern France and Germany. I have argued extensively here at Wikipedia that France and Germany were born with the Treaty of Verdun, but never would I have argued that that meant the creation of a French or German people. That said, your definition of relevant language is arbitrary (why is not Luxembourgish relevant?) and your constant references to these "readers" is getting annoying. If the reader wants to find out what this guy is called in French, he can click the French interwiki. He needs to expend the effort because this is the English Wiki and Pepin's French name simply isn't relevant to studies of him in English: that's why you'll never see it used. If many English scholars were using non-English names for Pepin or if the bulk of studies of Pepin were only or even predominantly available in French or German, then a case could be made that his foreign names are relevant. But he is well-studied in English and his English name is well-used. There is simply no need to weigh down the lead with foreign forms no Anglophone need expect to ever see unless he uses French/German sources. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"The people he ruled are long dead." Plenty of people are long dead. Most of the world's population is long dead. So what?

"And he ruled many more regions than just those in modern France and Germany." True, but 1) France and Germany (in particular France) made up the major part of Pippin's kingdom and 2)Modern France and Germany are successor states to his kingdom in a way that the Benelux countries are not (since modern France and Germany first separated in 843, from the original Frankish kingdom; the Low Countries don't have that direct link with the Frankish kingdoms, having come into existence later and from a different direction.).

"I have argued extensively here at Wikipedia that France and Germany were born with the Treaty of Verdun, but never would I have argued that that meant the creation of a French or German people." Good! Glad we agree. The proto-French and -Germans (except for the Saxons, of course) existed as the population of the Frankish kingdoms long before Verdun. Isn't it nice when we agree on something?

"That said, your definition of relevant language is arbitrary (why is not Luxembourgish relevant?)" - Because Luxembourg doesn't claim Pippin as a King? Because Luxembourg came into existence far later and by processes unassociated with the Carolingians? Because an article on Pippin is not the place for a long monograph on the distinct dialectic differences between the form of Germanic spoken in Luxembourg vis a vis wherever c.750? Whereas Pippin is strongly associated with German history, and French even more so. It's not arbitrary, it's just preventing the lead getting snowed under with too many names in different languages - just the most important forms.

"your constant references to these "readers" is getting annoying." God, I know, isn't it annoying the way wikipedia has 'readers'? It'd be so much easier to write articles if we didn't have to bother about anyone reading them. Seriously though, if you're finding it challenging or annoying having to make articles accessible and user-friendly, perhaps you should consider why you write on wikipedia.

"If the reader wants to find out what this guy is called in French, he can click the French interwiki." If a guest in your home wants a drink, he can get it himself. However, it's common courtesy to get it for him, since it's a harmless little gesture that is well-appreciated. In the same way, it is (or it should be) no skin off our noses to include the foreign form of a name in a lead, and it saves the reader a few seconds of having to deliberately interwiki. I mean, really, a few words giving a little bit of extra convenience to the reader (those people get annoyed by my referring to), so why the fuss?

"He needs to expend the effort because this is the English Wiki." Seriously, do you actually care about whoever is reading this at all? I'm not advocating an untranslated tract of text by Calmette or Riche dumped in the middle of the text, I'm positing the (accepted) idea that when a native language form of a person's name exists (and those are the native language forms, as they exist in the modern day - that the Franks are the ancestors of the French and Germans, and that their languages became French and German is hardly radical) it should be mentioned in the lead of the article, so that the reader knows that it is there, and isn't forced to go looking for it (what if you're unfamiliar with how wikipedia works? What if you're not confident with the design, or with I.T.? You might have trouble accessing the interwikis.)

"and Pepin's French name simply isn't relevant to studies of him in English: that's why you'll never see it used." Again, so what? It's not used in studies because it means the same as the English form; that doesn't change the fact that it is still the native form, and it is both convention and courtesy to include it in the lead.

"If many English scholars were using non-English names for Pepin or if the bulk of studies of Pepin were only or even predominantly available in French or German, then a case could be made that his foreign names are relevant. But he is well-studied in English and his English name is well-used. There is simply no need to weigh down the lead with foreign forms no Anglophone need expect to ever see unless he uses French/German sources." Really, you call a quarter of a sentence worth of text "weighing down the lead"? What if the reader simply wants to be swiftly informed of his name in German or French? What if the reader should be informed that he has a name in German and French?

I've said my piece. Srnec, you really need to consider whose interests you serve: you may find the idea of having to cater to the readers annoying, you may resent the fact that foreign language forms are generally included in the lead, but, nonetheless, that's how it is. That's the point of an encyclopaedia, to be accessible and thorough. And using the native forms of his name, as they exist today, is part of that. Michael Sanders 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to argue with someone who believes that in some sense of the word "native" the French translation is the "native name" of Pepin the Short.

As to the reader, you constantly invent "what if" scenarios about readers there is no evidence exist. The reader does not need to be informed that he has a German/French name because it is not relevant. He has a Luxembourgish name, but you didn't seem to think that is relevant. His French/German names are no more relevant. If he were a figure to whom the French nation looked back like they look back to Charlemagne (as do the German), things would be different, but he is not that type of historical figure. I care about readers: that's why I want to streamline the lead for readability and comprehensibility, while you are busy bulking it up with things worse than merely nonessential, possibly misinformative. Srnec (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any need for different translations of "the Short" - if we give any form of this, it should probably be the Latin - but giving Pepin as the French form and Pippin as the German certainly would make sense, and I don't see how there could be an objection to that. Both forms are used in English, and should thus be mentioned, and we ought to explain to readers where each comes from. john k (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Relegate it to the footnote, where it already is. Pippin comes from the Latin, which itself comes from the German. The forms Pipinus came into popularity later and I once saw Pepinus. Bachrach uses the English form "Peppin." The question is, do we need to say Pépin le Bref etc. in parentheses in the first line. The answer to that, I think, is no; it's not relevant to an English encyclopaedia article. Srnec (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How about

Pepin or Pippin, called The Short (714 – 24 September 768), also known as Pepin the Younger or Pepin III, was King of the Franks rom 751 to 768, and is best known as the father of Charlemagne.

? john k (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the general idea and edited the page accordingly. I retained the footnote and placed the dates after his name and before his nicknames. I removed "best known" and added reference to his career as mayor/dux. Do you like it? (N.B. I removed the half-filled ancestry section as not pertinent to a figure like Pepin, as per Talk:Louis V of France; and I removed the "See also" section because it contained external links and wikilinks already contained in the text.)Srnec (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not particularly like reverting changes, but as Michael reverted Srnec's changes, which had been discussed here, I felt that it was reasonable to do so in these circumstances. There is little point in John and Srnec discussing changes if they are simply to be reverted without any explanation. Am I being unreasonable? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And another revert. It would be nice to discuss the matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unknown birthplace

I’ve just taken the following sentence out of this article, He was born in 714 in Jupille, close to the city of Liège, in what is today Belgium, where the Carolingian dynasty originated. That territory was then a part of the kingdom of Austrasia.

When I checked the history of this article, I found that already the very first entry (done by an IP in 2002) stated that Pepin the Short was born in Jupille. That’s definitely not wikipedia at its best, because this statement of Pippin’s birthplace is only a supposition. The sources do not explicitly mention where Pepin was born and therefore this sentence who claims Jupille as if it was a fact must be taken out, it’s bad enough that it has fooled the readers of this article for six years now. All the serious reference books (e.g. Lexikon des Mittelalters; Regesta imperii I.1 no. 53g) do not name a birthplace of Pepin the Short just because we don’t know it. --Kliojünger 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Coinage

Pepin le Bref, denier, Troyes, 751-768. The "R" is for "Rex" (King) and the "P" is for Pepin.

Here's a coin of Pepin the Short. Feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article for this coin indicates that it was introduced by Pepin's son, Charlemagne. If so, this coin would belong to the reign of a later Pepin, and therefore seems misleading in this article. Would it not be best to move it from this article to the one about the coin itself? Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)