Talk:Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel

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

Request move[edit]

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 result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall think people who revert the edits are interested in Wikialty (something is true because I can get other Users to agree to it) then the actual informative content of the articles relating the Kassel branch of the former ruling house of Hesse, but if all interested, overall issue under way at Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel Cladeal832 (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two issues are quite related as the modern city is still the same place. The issue was resolved until one User switch only a few article titles for just certain members and trying to set it back to have consistancy. Now there is one other opinion that it ought be all changed to confuse readers even more. Now there doesn't seem to be much interest in this subject nor really valid points that really dismiss using Kassel (modern city is the same city and never changed it's name) so either some more reasons can be brought up and put this to bed. Hesse-Kassel ought to be used. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually read the Guildlines and state rarely if ever does an actual consensus arrive with a place that has multiple name and often a simple reason (ie Kassel direct a reader the correct location, while Cassel does not) is often more then good enought.Cladeal832 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to guidelines, consensus not required. Is this change in the overall best interest of clarity and being accurate to this article and Wikipedia as a whole. Nobody disagreed with that, only that their position was the best choice, ignoring the point I've read by somebody about how so many times a naming consensus is only applied to a few pages ignoring the rest. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONSENSUS. It would be best to use the English name for all instances of Hesse-Cassel, but that may be unobtainable. Until then: "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's applied to one that makes no sense whereas Hesse-Kassel is a valid term. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Request move[edit]

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 result of the proposal was no consensus to support move as before. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cladeal832. JPG-GR (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If interested why this move is happening, refer to this Discussion Cladeal832 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move will not be happening. So far you are the only one to abstain. As I have moved it back, I am involved, but that is three editors who agree that the page should remain at "Cassel". This is now bordering on disruption. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is bordering on abuse. No reason beyond consensus is ever given. I have made clear and thought out points and yet not one has been refuted. Consensus is not the trump card to all move requests. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an actual arguement. Britannica Encyclopedia and Columbia Encyclopedia use Hesse-Kassel as well many other reference source. Google Scholar in the Recent Articles option, Hesse-Cassel get 183 hits, which is less then Hesse-Kassel which get 209 hits. and if Editors check Catherine of Aragon#Spelling of her name, while during her lifetime Katherine was used, the fact that most modern scholars use Catherine trumps that. Kassel is the proper name in English today and Cassel has been used offically since 1926 so pretty sure that's a sign it's out-of-date. Also the Move Request guideline state that wider consensus is better then one for a few articles. Quote "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale" Since all but 6 articles use Hesse-Kassel is clear sign of wider consensus then this article to be moved then just this one discussion. Also refer to Talk:Hesse-Kassel#Requested move and see that although consensus is apparently not being reached on this page for the Duchess of Cambridge, it already has been for the Hesse-Cassel vs. Hesse-Kassel question. So this arguement is mute for this page and I wouldn't mind it so much except for that the Editors opposing this move either do not give points for Hesse-Cassel or not respond when the points they have made have been refuted. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a relevant point? Why not actual address the points given like how her sister is Marie Sophie of Hesse-Kassel Cladeal832 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I've already said that WP is not a reliable source, as our policies say; her sister should be moved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Agree Agree with the above mentioned points. Please try not to make this personal. MeanLevels (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That implies that I either send it out to multiple users, which I didn't, or that I tried to influence them, which I didn't. I send a message to one user who came to this discussion on his or her own and ask that since you stated that I was the only one interest in moving, thought he or she would like to know about User:PMAnderson skewing the discussion and leaving that User out. I notice again that User:PMAnderson is making me the issue and still won't argue Kassel issue beyond overblown statements. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree the vast majority of other related articles use Hesse-Kassel JLIBPB (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Kassel is the name use in English for the city. Disagree with silly prejudice against non-Anglophones. Think there have been many more good reasons for Kassel compared with CasselTodkvi5832 (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that, in the Google Scholar search, the Journal of Modern History, the leading journal of European history, uses "Hesse-Kassel". So, among my books, do John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, a standard textbook; James Sheehan's German History 1770-1866, the standard English-language work on that period of German history; McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, a standard work on early modern diplomatic history; and various others. That is also the name used by Encyclopedia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia. It is also essentially true that while the translated name "Hesse" remains in general use in English for the region, the anglicized "Cassel" is very rarely used, and the city is normally called "Kassel." It is not wikipedia's job to create uniformity when the usage itself is not uniform. And the standard usage at the beginning of the 21st century is, indeed, "Hesse-Kassel," and not either "Hesse-Cassel" or "Hessen-Kassel." john k 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: looking at JSTOR searches, the American Historical Review (the main American historical journal), as well as the Sixteenth Century Journal and the German Studies Review use "Hesse-Kassel", all in recent articles. The only title match for "Hesse-Cassel" is from the Journal of Economic History. Also note that many of the results for "Hesse-Cassel" in the Google Scholar search come from older sources - one is from 1912. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sources from 1912 will say "Cassel", because the city was renmmed in 1926. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ignore all the other points to single out one thing that doesn't dismiss the entire arguement. So even with all these mainstream academic sources using "Hesse-Kassel" and the over one thousand other Wikipedia articles that use "Hesse-Kasse", still honestly want to oppose this move for a valid reason related to this. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The facts don't seem to support the view that few modern sources use "Hesse-Cassel". The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography was published in 2004 and it uses Hesse-Cassel exclusively. The google scholar "recent" searches show that there are many journals and books that use it not just JEH. DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For the same reasons as before, but this time with the additional reason that the proposer of the move is a vote canvasser, who may be employing either sockpuppets or meatpuppets in an attempt to vote-stack. The subject of this article was never known as "Hesse-Kassel" and was always known as "Hesse-Cassel". I see no reason to alter their surname to a modern neologism, when the spelling that they used themselves is perfectly consistent with an accepted norm. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal notes at home indicate that Hugh Massingberd's Burke's books, Weir's Royal Genealogy, The Complete Peerage and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (published in 2004; she doesn't have her own biography but she is mentioned in the biographies of her husband and two of her children) all refer to Augusta as "of Hesse-Cassel". I have yet to see any reputable source refer to this person as "Augusta Hesse-Kassel". DrKiernan (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, continuing the "google scholar" theme: 17 hits for "Augusta of Hesse-Cassel". None for "Augusta of Hesse-Kassel". DrKiernan (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice that 7 hits from Google Scholar under recent articles for "Augusta of Hesse-Kassel", one is only able to read 2 of them, so it's pretty bad faith to reference a site that you or anyone else can't read. Of the 2 remaining, totally agree that they use Hesse-Cassel (hence how ambiguous nature of the name, not that one is used only switch only the opposition states about Hesse-Kassel), but 2 to 0 isn't the trump card is being made out to be, also pretty clear that Lulu.com (as well Alison Weir and Oxford and etc..., reliable sources) publishers do not trump Journal of Modern History (the leading journal of European history), American Historical Review, Sixteenth Century Journal, German Studies Review, John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, James Sheehan's German History 1770-1866, McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815 as well as Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia and Columbia Encyclopedia. Also, Wikipedia uses Hesse-Kassel. Notice what I did, I actual read the counter-point, acknowledge it, showed that it has reasons, and then showed how it isn't on point to this Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel issue or that another point trumps it, which not many if any of the opposition have done Cladeal832 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for another personal attack. I don't use sock-puppets, and no I don't canvass for votes. Just that you stated you were a librarian and use that creditial to state that Hesse-Cassel is used more often, but solely for an FYI thing, just wanted to let you know about this other information that know realize you must have already ready and ignored from the Talk:Hesse-Kassel. I didn't even ask for you to vote, let alone which way to vote, which is requirement of canvassing. Show that other editors make actual notice that one the "more coherant" arguement requirement for a move, the points I have brought up are actual better. This exactly why Britannica is not affair of Wikipedia. They would never spelt Cassel for one article and use Kassel for the same person's sibling. Of the nearly 50 articles, one 7 use Hesse-Cassel so pretty sign of wider consensus. Also note that 1911 edition Britannica gives "Hesse-Cassel" while the current one uses "Hesse-Kassel". If Britannica is able to update, surely Wikipedia will too. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to the lack or source, again, as previously stated, we're editing on Wikipedia (I know you know) and the guidelines state that wider consensus is better then for one article, ie the overall Hesse-Kassel can, and according to the guidelines ought to, be used for all related articles. So the many examples of Hesse-Kassel being used (which still don't get the other editors since put their heads in the sand here and ignore all the example given and still state "Hesse-Kassel" either doesn't exist or never or rarely used in English dispute plenty of evidence it is). As to the Duchess of Cambridge, the sources for reference for pre-World War Two, and yes, Wikipedia is about modern usages so don't get why it ought be ignored. Also User:Kiernan has ignored all the other reference site given which are standards for historians. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the opposition, I trying to make an arguement that Hesse-Cassel is never used, it's an ambiguous term. Now I seems with a lot of accusations being lobbied at me personally for my motives, just want to go off the actual debate for a bit to state that with nearly 90% of all Wikipedia using Hesse-Kassel, thought it would helpful to actual bother doing the few edits to make it universal since, to be frank, it seems sloppy to use the term inter-changably in the same encyclopedia. Now only remains these 7 articles, and yet such of fuss has been raised, and again not one of the people is bothering to over thousands of edits it would take to get "Hesse-Cassel" used universally here. So I actual looked at why, and the reasons, "it's historical", "use during the person's lifetime", "more hits on Google Scholar", "German nationalism", etc... I bother to not just take it as face value and noticed that each can, and was, dismissed and I've bother to do so, ie Catherine of Aragon debate shows that while a name may be common in that era, since most scholar is the modern terminology, so does Wikipedia. And Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and Württemberg show that if a German term is common enough in English (please don't state that it isn't because shown consistantly with evidence that Hesse-Kassel is). Don't understand how come we're suppose to act in a bubble and not notice these other debates. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not like being termed a socket-puppet. Again think that Hesse-Kassel ought to link up with Hesse-Kassel. Since both have strong reference sources showing either Kassel or Cassel, maybe at the least they cancel each other out, although Colubmia and Britannica seem stronger sources MeanLevels (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts are incoherent and make little sense. You must provide reliable sources for "Augusta of Hesse-Kassel". I cannot find any reliable source that uses the term. I have provided a range of sources dating between 1818 and 2004 that use "Augusta of Hesse-Cassel". I think you are trying to insert original research by coining a new term. DrKiernan (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Agree makes little sense that although all the sources have Hesse-Kassel, one person is different from all her relatives. Plus a source from 1818 seems a bit dated? JLIBPB (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"..makes little sense that although all the sources have Hesse-Kassel..." ?? DrKiernan has provided a whole range of sources to refute "Kassel" as the most common and accurate usage. Plus you're missing the point. It's a range of sources from 1818 to 2004, not just one source from 1818. It's clear this isn't going to go anywhere. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for again addressing only points I make that you are able to dismiss while ignoring the others.
I'll restate for User:Kiernan since he or she didn't completely understand the rational and so kindly asked for clarification since of course nobody would be making a final opinion on this without reading and clearly understanding the other posts. You site Google Scholar yet under searches in recent articles, 3 hits of "augusta of hesse-cassel" come up. Only 2 are viewable by the public, and one is not able in good faith to reference a website that they or anybody else cannot read. More hits on Google Scholar does look good in debates (ie, more hits for Google Scholar for Hesse-Kassel then Hesse-Cassel under recent articles but somehow User:Kiernan ignores that since the Duchess of Cambridge here is a Princess of Hesse-Kassel yet still for some unknown reason a totatlly separate case from her relations) but 2 to 0 isn't the universal trump card not because I say so, but the Wikipedia guidelines state that it's a good sign for ambiguous terms in move requests but not the final factor. One of the 2 remain sites is an online book published by Lulu.com hence that reference. I don't just dismiss Oxford Biography Dictionary (which is a reprint of 1903) or Lulu.com since I find them "not moving" because that's just silly and a bit arrogant. But just that so many other modern prestigious academic journal and highly regarded contemporary encyclopedias (Britannica, Columbia, Wikipedia) use Hesse-Kassel.
If any of the 3 opposing editors were willing to check over each of the 1,190 hits from Google Search Engine for Hesse-Kassel in English Wikipedia, then I wouldn't be so adamant on this move request. Don't tell that's not a legitimate request because it is if you're so serious about it. I did for 199 hits from Google Search Engine and therefore it can honestly be stated that (which I have so many times before and of course has "not moved" the opposition but still is was the main rational (at first and it's not the only one) for this move would be with these 7 article titles switched, Wikipedia would be uniform (not in a bad way since right now Marie Sophie of Hesse-Kassel and Princess Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel are sisters and without consistancy).
Whether or not the Wikipedia higher-ups agree, I don't agree with naming conventions that are not universal especially is the Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel debate. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...I was solely addressing JLIBPB. Unless you're saying that you are the same person. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing your remark about all the other reference sources did "not move you" which, c'mon, isn't that strong a reason. Again, but the first statement, thanks for only addressing a bit rather then the whole set of points put out here. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose All reliable sources, of any date, are unanimously agreed on "Augusta of Hesse-Cassel". DrKiernan (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Says you. Oh, and if one source is all you required, here Posthumous Memoirs of Karoline Bauer: From the German By Karoline Bauer, page 266 which was first published in 1884 and pretty sure that is English. And before the obivious, "This from a German using German place names" notice that the text uses Brunswick and not Braunschweig. Also Bauer was the second wife of Leopold I of Belgium so she would be familiar with British royalty. Also shuts down that Hesse-Kassel was never used before 1926. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not making sense. I don't see the relevance of this book. DrKiernan (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suprise, suprise. You stated that there is not one source online using Hesse-Kassel to describe the wife of the 1st Duke of Cambridge. You don't see that this text, published by the University of California and orignally published in 1884 by a British publishing firm, goes against your previous statement. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't. DrKiernan (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so, the opinion from User:DrKiernan? Also check Britannica 1970 in Google Books and again Hesse-Kassel, Next the 18-year-old daughter of the prince of Hesse-Kassel was considered, but her father alleged that she was too young. Finally, the widowed duchess of Saxe-Meiningen consented to the sacrifice of her daughter Adelaide, and the marriage took place on July 11, 1818. So that's a primary and secondary source here. At very least, points to me for trying, but really hope User:DrKiernan will see it wasn't that uncommon. The points of User:DrKiernan were the lack of reliable sources using Hesse-Kassel (pretty sure it's User:PeterSymons who is more concern with the pre-1926 stuff and not User:DrKiernan?) and the unanimous use of Hesse-Cassel for this particular person, both of which have been disproven. Also User:DrKiernan has issue with the idea that most modern scholars use Hesse-Kassel forgetting the example he or she notes. Fine, but to reword, more use Hesse-Kassel as shown by the higher Google Scholar recent articles hits as well as the longer list of journals and encyclopedias (also add Encarta to that one) provided that use Hesse-Kassel to the one provided that use Hesse-Cassel. And if the Duchess of Cambridge is both Hesse-Kassel or Hesse-Cassel, back to the 6 others move requests Cladeal832 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As the lady in question was known as Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel when she was alive, I am opposed to this page move. If reliable sources can be found where, while she was alive, she was ever known as Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel, I might then be swayed to accept the move. I am of the opinion that the only way a person's article should be titled is the way they were known while they were alive. If there is need, create a redirect for any non-local variations. - LA (T) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referring back to autobiography of Posthumous Memoirs of Karoline Bauer which was first published during the Duchess's lifetime (1884 and the Duchess died in 1889), and Bauer was married to the Duchess's niece's widower, she is referred to as a Princess of Hesse-Kassel. Good enough to sway User:Lady Aleena over to support? Cladeal832 (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't trounce the 20-odd references I've already provided to the contrary, especially as the book also uses, for example, the spellings Kracau and Koburg, which indicates that the spellings in it are idiosyncratic. DrKiernan (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it 2, so another sign on how much you actually read my points. Plus Encarta, plus Columbia, plus the whole pile of academic journals that aren't moving. Also note that you provided two hits with Google Scholar plus Oxford (which although published in 2004, is a republish of 1903). Also note that in your 1818 source, it also uses Hesse-Hombourg which you're not needless adding to each Wikipedia site. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have provided 25 references. 17 from Google scholar, plus 3 from ODNB (written and published in 2004), plus two books by Massingberd, plus Weir, plus the London Gazette from 1818, plus The Complete Peerage. There are many, many more. You've provided no academic journals for "Augusta of Hesse-Kassel". DrKiernan (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is only 5 that one is able to read so you reference website you can't read. I read all five times, one refers to her husband as Aldolphus Frederick (in article just Aldolphus) or also Duke of Cambridge-Hanover or Hesse-Hombourg or Grand Duchess of Edinburgh, but didn't change that. She is referenced as Hesse-Kassel by a Britannica, Columbia and Encarta. Come on, we coming close to something here in terms of consensus. Be a bit more open. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean consensus for "Cassel", I would agree. Encarta and Britannica are nowhere near as scholarly as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The sources DrKiernan provides above are also strictly scholarly. Encarta and Britannica do not fall into the same bracket. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ignoring Journal of Modern History (the leading journal of European history), American Historical Review, Sixteenth Century Journal, German Studies Review, John Merriman's A History of Modern Europe, James Sheehan's German History 1770-1866, McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815 as well as Britannica Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia (the 3 top sources listed in Wikipedia's own guidelines for move requests no less) and Wikipedia Encyclopedia itself. Now that's a pretty scholarly list of journals. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is just one source from the wife of the man who was once married to the niece of this person. It is almost a game of Chinese whispers. Also, it uses Google. Have you read "What a search test can do, and what it can't"? With that in mind, I am not swayed due to the use of Google in your arguments. - LA (T) 08:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC) (updated 08:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I quote from Lady Aleena's rational for being opposed, Search Engines can fail to Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects. Well, previous stated so many times, the latest research uses Hesse-Kassel. As well, have issue with he or her rational that what somebody is called during their lifetime is the final criteria. Just randomly, Edward of Portugal would have been known as Duarte. Or Emperor Duanzong of Song would have never been known by that name during his lifetime (unaware of English at that point). Nor if I was written an article on Mars would I write it the same the Ancient Romans would, nor Mangala (मंगल), it's Hindu name, which if I writting about a person living 1,000 ago, it's easy argument that more people knew it as Mangala (मंगल) a 1,000 years since there were more Hindu speaker then Latin. Probably this is not the logic Lady Aleena wants to apply universally to all Wikipedia (since that's just silly). Researchers modernize terms, it's just what happens. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to restate before my point gets skewed and dismissed for wrong reasons and I reply anyhow, the logic here is that between 1797 and 1889, she would have been referred to as Hesse-Cassel by majority of scholar and non-scholar written at during that time so therefore must be true in the here and now. Well, expect for time travelers, we don't write references for people how are dead for over a century, but the one alive today? Fair point. Now, as the academic journals (not off of Google.com so no worries there) listed so many times (which are orignal research, not referencing research) show the historians of today uses Hesse-Kassel. If I gave you a reference source from that was from pre-1889, would you sincerely give it as much weight as one researched and published last month on the same subject (be honest). And before you get back to harping on that Oxford Biographical Dictionary stuff, yes it was published in 2004, but read it again, it's a republishing from 1903. I know this is dealing with historical figures, but history, like science or grammar or spelling, does get updated. Think just a wikilink for Hesse-Kassel where is states the aka Hesse-Cassel stuff there is better then the needless stuff right with (or Hesse-Cassel) on each article. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is all brand new, conceived in 1992 and written by people who were not even alive in 1903. For example The Duke of Cambridge's article is written by Alan Palmer, Prince George's article is written by Edward Spiers, and Mary Adelaide's article is written by Frank Prochaska. You have yourself demonstrated beyond doubt that modern scholars and historians use the Hesse-Cassel spelling: "Google Scholar in the Recent Articles option, Hesse-Cassel get 183 hits".
As both I and John Kenney said before, "It is not wikipedia's job to create uniformity when the usage itself is not uniform." Trying to impose sole use of your favoured spelling is like trying to impose sole use of American spelling (which is not done even though there are 5 times more Americans than Britons). Imposing extra rules such as "You shall only spell this word in this way", alienates potential readers and contributing volunteers, especially when there are nationalist overtones to the spellings chosen. DrKiernan (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.185.217.73 (talk): This anonymous user is an IP in Ontario, Canada and shows a distinctive editing pattern of no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel.

User:Cladeal832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They also edit from Ontario IP addresses[1].

User:MeanLevels shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario related subject matter[2].

User:JLIBPB shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. They are also interested in Ontario-related subject matter[3].

User:Todkvi5832 shows a distinctive editing pattern of few to no edit summaries and a large number of edits to nobility articles, including those of Hesse-Cassel. The username ends in the same three letter abbreviation as Cladeal832.

All five have "!voted" at least once in related move debates and occasionally edit each others' comments: Talk:Princess Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hesse-Cassel or Hesse-Kassel[edit]

possibly foolishly, I have re-opened the C-or-K naming dispute at Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel#Proposed move (3). If you have a strong opinion either way as to whether we should use the C form or the K form in the articles in question, please express it there. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in process[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpenheim is not in Kassel[edit]

As an inhabitant, I can state that the Castle of Rumpenheim is not situated in Kassel, but outside of Offenbach, south of the Main river. Please refer to the German Wikipedia Article on "Rumpenheimer Schloss". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.253.38.6 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Augusta_of_Hesse-Kassel&oldid=1205490805"