Talk:Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss

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

Year of birth[edit]

This article says Reuss was 71 years of age in December 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-terror-plot-prince-heinrich-reichsburger-alleged-qanon-inspired-coup/ 204.11.186.190 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, he is born 1951 and by no means a "self styled" prince. Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuss is his correct name. Ktiv (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, that was my mistake in initially creating the article. Thanks to those who amended it. Maximilian775 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Heinrich Reuss is ambiguous with every other male member of either line, although this is most media attention any member of the house has received in decades, if not longer. He does hold himself out as Heinrich XIII. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking into this after processing the move request at WP:RM/TR. I believe we can also consider Prince Heinrich XIII Reuss of Köstritz as a possible article title to further disambiguate this person from the other members of the household. – robertsky (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same debate is going on in the german wikipedia right now, allow me to summarize the issue: It's really a peculiar case, but to my understanding the roman numerals are not just decorum, but an official part of his name. The Reuß-family has this weird tradition of naming every male descendant Heinrich, and everybody gets a number, not just the (former) rulers or nowadays the heads of family. Afaik they reset the counter at the beginning of every century or so. Heinrich XIII's father, born 1910, was lucky enough to get the I (apparently no children born betwenn 1900 and 1910), then 11 other children in this branch of the family were born, and finally this Heinrich here got the number XIII in 1951. In 1927 the district-court in Gera ruled that the local authorities should acknowledge the numbers as part of their names, because they "are not a reference to former sovereignity, but a family tradition. ("Das Amtsgericht Gera entschied 1927, dass das Standesamt die Nummerierung mit dem Zahlenzusatz weiter durchzuführen habe, da es sich nicht um einen Bezug zur früheren Landeshoheit handele, sondern um eine alle männlichen Familienmitglieder betreffende Tradition."). Hope this helps...--Schreckgespenst (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing here again because there seems to be all sorts of confusion in general, not only about what the lemma should be (see discussion below), but what the guy's proper name is in the first place. Understanding this is an important prerequisite for deciding what to call him here (if one deliberately chooses a different spelling).

To begin with: unlike his ancestors who lived before 1918, the man has no titles that could be translated. He was born after the abolition of the nobility in Germany. That is why a comparison with other bearers of the name is not very useful. Of course, he is neither royal, nor noble, because there has been no German nobility since 1918.

However, the former titles were not abolished as in Austria (cf. Otto Habsburg), but became family names. In the case of the Prince of Terror, "Heinrich" is the civil, legal first name, "XIII" is the middle name (the admissibility of which has even been confirmed by the courts for the Reusses, since it exists only because of the strange family tradition of calling every man Heinrich and does not imply any claim to rule) and "Prinz Reuß" is quite simply his surname. Therefore, any translation into English, any other order and the omission of parts of the name are purely theoretical. The addition of "zu Köstritz", which used to be part of the title of his ancestors, is also wrong, for the same reasons as mentioned above. When the nobility was abolished and the choice of a civil surname became compulsory, the head of the family bindingly chose the civil name "Prinz Reuß" for all family members. Only in the case of the middle name could one discuss whether it is needed, but there I would clearly argue for yes, precisely because every single male member since 1200 of this antiquated family would otherwise be called "Heinrich Prinz Reuß". I also find the spelling with "ss" borderline, but that seems to be done in the English Wikipedia also for other (clearly civil) family names like Franz Josef Strauß - even if I don't understand the reason, so I could live with it.

To make a long story short: his legal, civil name is Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß which should be used for the lemma and in the text and not translated, reordered or changed. StTropez83 (talk)

Only saw the discussion here after I reverted StTropez83's edit. However, not much discussion here. Noble titles are family matter and are assigned according to rules shared by European nobilities; it does not matter in the least whether their particular states recognize their noble titles or not; recognition varies from country to country. Why the state is not the arbiter? Because nobilities existed before many states, certainly most current European states, and were not necessarily ennobled by anybody. Virtually all European countries allow usage of noble titles, which stems from the consensus achieved with the nobility when many of the current republics were established.37.34.79.116 (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that StTropez83 is hardly impartial in his comment, calling the subject of this article a "Prince of Terror". This puts all of your other views on the subject in doubt and I will keep an eye on this article over the coming days.37.34.79.116 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a meaty argument. ;-) The good man is the ringleader of a domestic terrorist organisation and is in custody. I will keep a much closer eye on anonymous IPs who keep putting made-up titles of nobility in the article and trying to start an edit war. StTropez83 (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no noble titles in Germany anymore. They became part of the family name and even Mr. Prinz Reuß himself does not claim a title. He styles himself as „Heinrich XVI. Prinz Reuß“ where „Prinz Reuß“ is the legal, civil name. Apart from that even if they claimed a title it would be irrelevant because we use the legal names in Wikipedia or the publicly common name not something completely made up. StTropez83 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"something completely made up"...
If he was an impostor I would agree with you, but he is not. 37.34.79.116 (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Dua Lipa her legal name? Are you sure we even know legal names of many subjects of Wikipedia articles, from entertainers to royalty and nobility across the world? Do we know the legal name of Emperor of Japan?
37.34.79.116 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no noble titles in Germany anymore"...Wikipedia is hosted in the US and adheres to the laws of the USA, not Germany.
37.34.79.116 (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The person we are talking about is a German citizen and their name adheres to German name law. As said: they removed „zu Köstritz“ by themselves. StTropez83 (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 December 2022[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved to Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss. There was a rough consensus to move and add "Heinrich XIII" to the name, although none of the various alternatives had a clear majority. Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss seems to be the most supported. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS a new move request to any of the alternatives can be started at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Reuss → Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss of Köstritz – To disambiguate from the other members of Imperial County of Reuss named similarly, and return this title as a redirect back to Imperial County of Reuss. See also Category:Princes of Reuss. – robertsky (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Pbritti as you had placed an earlier request at RM/TR to move to the current title. – robertsky (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Thanks for the ping. I trend towards retaining the current name as sourcing states that princely titles are now not legal realities. Reuss's legal name is "Heinrich Reuss" and I would worry that moving it could imply support for his claim of a royal title. That said, if there are enough instances of him being exclusively referred to as "Heinrich XIII", I could change my vote. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that an argument for moving it? Because if it is an part of his name, not just a title? 46.114.2.48 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: He is no prince, there are no princes in germany anymore, the word "Prinz" became part of the surname in 1918, per weimar consitution, and remains as such ever since. so translating it would be simply wrong Norschweden (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per wp:ncroy Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles—blindlynx 19:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change:Germany’s nobility is abolished BUT their titles form now a part of their family name, and they have their own Nobility Council. The titles only inherit by marriage, other forms of gaining a ‘titled last name’ is not recognised. Except, that’s the legal part. They are still noble families, with inheritance and use of the title. The fact that the German Empire doesn’t exist anymore doesn’t mean that the noble families also disappeared with it. Nobility by form is intrinsic: the Uradel wasn’t regulated by law, that system came later.Endymion87 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Consistency. Several historical statesman are named Heinrich Reuss. All better target for said page. Also there are currently ~30 living males named "Heinrich Reuss". Axisstroke (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the common name used by the press, for consistency and because the titles are sort of retained like surnames now. As family tradition all the males have the same name and Heinrich Reuss doesn't cut it when finding the right person. Update: I'm in favor of the title being Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss as it's the legal and common name. --Killuminator (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since his full civil, legal name is Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß, we do not translate person names usually (otherwise Steffi Graf would be Steffi Earl ;-)) also Heinrich Reuss is not corrected, this person does not exist at all, he would only have this name if his family had lived in Austria when the nobility was removed. In Germany the former titles became the surnames. StTropez83 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, the family removed the "zu Köstritz" part in the 1930s, so the full name would be Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß. Otherwise I fully agree that a move would make much sense. --slg (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I would generally concur with Pbritti regarding use of the term in media reporting, as well as Wikipedia:NCROY. Additionally, in my opinion, referring to him in his 'royal' title plays into the whole reason why the insurrection may have involved him, to bring legitimacy; so I would trend towards keeping it as-is. --Maximilian775 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the change as current article name is made up as not his name not used by any source and could refer to any male member of this family, Also proposed English version is supported by English languages sources which are using the English version Prince Reuss (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). HokeyWokey (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — HokeyWokey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • As others have stated before me, his legal name is "Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß zu Köstritz", "Prinz" being not a royal title anymore, but yet another part of a complicated name. I tried to explain this family's peculiar naming conventions and how german authorities handling it above... Given the absurd number of Heinrichs this family produces, I strongly support moving the article to a lemma that includes the "XIII", but strictly buerocactically speaking, the "Prinz" should not be translated.--Schreckgespenst (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Surely if a change is to be made, it should be to his ‘correct’ title Prince Heinrich XIII Reuss of Köstritz for consistency. This is how other minor Princes of Reuss are referred to. Not as 'Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss of Köstritz'. My understanding is the position of the title 'Prince' though subtle, is significant. Jalipa (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this is Jalipa's first edit in 11 years. While I doubt any single editor is acting in bad faith–particularly Jalipa–this discussion is likely being hampered by its newsworthiness and thus steering the conversation away from policy or merit. Jalipa's point is a good one, though, and I'm glad they raised it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jalipa, but he is no Prince of Reuss, the word Prinz is pasrt of his surname as all Noble titles were merged with the surnames, when nobility was abolished in 1918 (before his birth) he never was a Prince, he just has a surname that shows his ancestors used to be princes. giving him the title would be false information Norschweden (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Prince Heinrich XIII Reuss of Köstritz per Jalipa. Richiepip (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Her argument is wrong though, there is no title. Prince is part of the Surname. Moving it to the beginning is technically incorrect 46.114.2.48 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Surely if a change is to be made, it should be to his ‘correct’ legal name written in his passport. He is not a Prince, but his surname is "Prinz Reuß" (or Prinz Reuss, if you wish). Jalipa's understanding that the position of the title 'Prince' is significant, is right. But exactely for this reason, "Prinz" has to follow the number and must not be translated. If you adopt Jalipa's solution, this means that he is really a Prince, which is not the case. His first name is "Heinrich XIII.", therefore the number has to be included as well.--Jordi (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already voted above hence this is just a remark about the legal situation in Germany because it might be unknown to many non-Germans: The noble families lost all their special rights 1918 but could choose their former title as surname and other than „normal“ surnames they are adopted according to their sex (so in case of the Reuss family the surname of all family members is „Prinz Reuß“ or (female) „Prinzessin Reuß“, they removed the „zu Köstritz some decades ago as I learned earlier today). So his legal name is „Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß“ where there definitely is no comma (you never have a comma between given and surname) and it definitely should not be translated to English (who translates surnames? ;-)) and also the „Prinz“ does not stand in front of the first name like a title. It is just the family name which is „Prinz Reuß“. That‘s a very important difference to family members that were born before 1918 b/c they actually were „Princes“ when they were born. He is just a guy with the funny family name Prinz Reuß thus the lemma definitely should be moved to Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß and not be translated or ordered differentely even if other Reuß‘ from the 18th century are known as Prince Heinrich MMX of Reuss in English-speaking countries. Just see former German president Richard von Weizsäcker as a reference, he is for good reasons not called Richard of Weizsaecker in English WP. StTropez83 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: A man with the last name "Roy" would not have that translated, a man with the first name "Raja" wouldn't either. This man has no title, his last name has an interesting history because his ancestors held titles, but now it is just that; a last name. It isn't Prince, its Prinz, and to translate it would be to endorse his claim. SomerIsland (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Is there any evidence that the number of Heinrich pages is is confusing readers?--Mpen320 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    if anything, is heinrich reuss even notable enough to have a wiki page? he's essentially just a 71 year old private citizen who committed a crime. it'd be like having a page for each individual jan 6 rioter. Aachenshinto (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to agree with you, but it would appear he is more the Stewart Rhodes of this alleged conspiracy. I'd object under too soon. It would appear he COULD get over the cusp with his business career. Whether he meets GNG should be revisited after the case unfolds. It's entirely possible this is subjective importance or too soon.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aachenshinto: Our notability standards can be reviewed at WP:GNG. Generally, I'd concur: this would just be an eccentric who happened to join a rather coordinated group of fellow eccentrics. However, a number of sources capture vignettes of his life prior to his involvement in the plot and there are sources dating to the 1970s that establish him as a minimally notable person. We could have conceivably had an article on him before all this (though it would have been sparse and reliant on German-language material) and certainly have enough now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the articles, he was not just some coup participant, but was a ringleader and was the envisioned leader of the coup government. If the general coup is notable (it is) then Reuss is notable by virtue of being its leader. Maximilian775 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At this point, I would like to say that the request to move is motivated by a perceived need to disambiguate and that the eventual article title does not matter. I am open to alternatives, moving back to the shortlived Heinrich Reuss (born 1951) title or just Heinrich XIII, if there are other editors who think so as well. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not royalty, just a man named Heinrich Reuss. The disambiguation page could state, "arrested for an alleged plot to subvert German democracy" or some similar wording. --Ooligan (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Royal title is purely self-styled, as opposed to actively conferred by an extant monarchic administration. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pbritti and naming conventions. Given German nobiliary titles were abolished a century ago, adding it to the title of the article seems like a weird choice. Arguments for moving due to disambiguation also fall flat for me, as all of the examples listed are nobles from hundreds of years ago. I hardly think people are going to confuse this guy with some counts of the Holy Roman Empire. That he doesn't have a noble title is sufficient disambiguation in and of itself imo. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    German nobility titles became part of the surname. The "self styled" claim is without base. His legal name is Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuss. Side remark a German prince is not royal per se. Axisstroke (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This would support Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss based on this being what his first name and last name on his passport, or used in the news or whatever, but not Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss of Köstritz styled in a royal manner, which would make him out to be an actual prince in some way other than just by name/his own sense of entitlement. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it looks like point #7 of WP:SOVEREIGN discourages the use of ordinal numbers for title pretenders who have never actually reigned. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. But these ordinals are not regnal numbers at all, and members of the House of Reuss who didn't reign were using them as part of their names long before the titles were abolished. It's an unusual situation - unique, I believe - and some of the assumptions in that rule don't apply here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's his name (allowing for the translation of 'Prinz' as 'Prince', which RS appear to be doing), and distinguishes him from the numerous other similarly named people past and present. The name isn't a claim of rulership (the German word for that is Fürst); it's just the weird way this family of privileged oddballs are named. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose let's not legitimise his false claim of royalty. He is just Heinrich Reuss with unusual middle names "XIII Prinz". Abcmaxx (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (alongside alternatives): Heinrich Reuss is too ambiguous as all members of this House were Heinrichs. I oppose current title and believe that it should be redirected to its old target. Although I weak support the proposed title, I'd support any improvement over current title, for example, Heinrich Reuss (coup leader), or simply Heinrich Reuss (born 1951) per WP:NCPEOPLE. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to WP:NCROY, but I have no objections against using his princely title in context. --Minoa (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grnrchst. He's different than his ancestors who were actual nobility (pre-1918). This guy was never a prince, he's a seditionist with a fancy last name.-Ich (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (along with alternatives) I agree with CX Zoom. All of his ancestors had the name Heinrich, so at least some specificity should be good, but not specifically the title he identifies himself with, and to me, it seems it may legitimize his claim to being actual royalty, and that he is not. I do think there are better article titles rather than the proposed one, such as the ones that had been suggested by CX Zoom. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise proposal: since obviously the vast majority rejects the proposal for understandable reasons, but Heinrich Reuss is factually wrong and confusing and was probably only "invented" because German naming law was not clear, I would still propose renaming him to his full civil name, as we do with all other civilians: Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß (or if that's how it's done in the enWP, Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuss with ss for my sake). It is his civil name according to German law. He has no other. Leaving out the middle name „XIII.“ would be confusing because there are 30 living and hundreds of deceased in his family with the exact same name, including public figures. StTropez83 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this as an alternative to the main proposal, which I also still support. Either would be better than the current name. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support to the alternative. Axisstroke (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß is indeed his registered civil name. After the end of the monarchy in Germany, former titles like Prinz (prince) became part of the family names, whereby the numbers in this case are not to be seen in connection with a monarchical order of rulers, but are founded in the family tradition, since EVERY male Reuss is called Heinrich. Thus they are distinguished (also in official documents of today) from each other whereby the firstborn Reuss family member of each century becomes Heinrich I.. --Skendix (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the opinions on using "Heinrich Prinz Reuss"? --Minoa (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a native speaker and do not know the customs of English Wikipedia, but can we now please change the article to either Heinrich XII. Prinz Reuß or the English translation of his civil name “Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss“? That would be very much appreciated. StTropez83 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative of Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss -Based on what has been said above, it seems as though this is (Prinz) Reuss' legal name and what's being used as the main reference to him in the press. Maximilian775 (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT: All pages of nobles and their heirs are always named in formats with their title included. Its inappropiate to use the simple civilian format which does not show their titles. Plus, there are already too many Heinrich Reusses. Heinrich Reuss should not be used because everyone in the clan is/was Heinrich Reuss, and it is neither his official name nor conforming to naming convention of nobles heirs.Pktlaurence (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moved to Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß. StTropez83 (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article was unilaterally moved [1] mid discussion in contempt for the requested move discussion. That's reason enough to oppose in my books. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ridiculous. What the subject's real name is doesn't in any way depend on how an over-enthusiastic Wikipedia editor behaves. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, fuck German law. If you want to build a case that a proposed title satisfies Wikipedia's own policies of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, the onus is on you to do so in a good faith manner, rather than to bulldoze over consensus. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a weird reason to oppose. You can argue on (de)merits like those above you, but opposing just because someone moved the page when an RM is ongoing. As you note, there are naming conventions on English Wikipedia, and try to stick to them. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it's getting silly. I may have moved the article hastily and should have waited to see if anyone would oppose my proposal in the next few days (I don't know what the appropriate time limit is), but the original proposal is opposed by 90% (including you, apparently), if you've been following the discussion. I then proposed the compromise of moving it to its legal, civil name instead of a made-up title. There has been no substantial opposition to this so far, only comments on possible further variants. I'll say goodbye to this discussion now and simply look at what the article will be called in a few weeks. In any case, "Heinrich Reuss" is a made-up name under which no one knows the person addressed. But I have better things to do than have unobjective kindergarten discussions, so call him "Donald Duck" for all I care. StTropez83 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposal really isn't worth discussing it's so far off. Based on the German sources I've been examining and multi-Heinrich issue, I hope we can settle on "Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß" thought I much prefer the English-language orthography "Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuss" as less startling. Rutsq (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. His ties with the House already cut off, rather this name should just be a redirect. Ricky250 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting idea: I can get behind this (listing him under "notable people involved" section or something, but only if others are with me, because it is a WP:BOLD proposal. --Minoa (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His family can cut ties with him but they can't cut his legal name. --Killuminator (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed move, neutral on weak support for one of the alternatives "Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuß" or "Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss". He's definitely not a prince, and titling our article as if he were runs into serious POV/FRINGE issues. I'm mildly sympathetic to the idea of using his full name, but it shouldn't be translated. I'm perplexed about the mid-name punctuation, and it would be a good idea to have discussion about (1) whether there really is a full-stop in the middle of his name, and (2) whether to use "ß" or "ss". --JBL (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the consensus of these comments is in opposition to the proposed move, but having expressed my view above I don't want to be the one to close this discussion. I note that it's easy to find contradictory guidance on WP as to when and whether an editor who has commented can close a discussion. Frustrating. I look forward to a discussion of a better option.
While waiting, I'll add this about the German style "XIII." That period after the Roman number tells the German reader that XIII is an ordinal, much like the "th" added to 13th in English. But we don't do anything comparable in English. We know Elizabeth II is read as Elizabeth the Second and Pope Paul VI is Pope Paul the Sixth. No need for a period. Rutsq (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you about what the outcome will be, but I don't think there is any rush; nothing in the real world is resting on where this article sits for the next three days. Thanks for the explanation about the period -- it makes me feel more positive about the "just write his full name" solution. (By the way, the indentation of your comment is a little confusing -- right now, it looks as if someone wrote the first paragraph and forgot to sign it, and then you responded to them.) JBL (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a German native speaker and author of the German Wikipedia, and this discussion about giving the person a "Wikipedia name" is rather confusing for me. There is a press information of the Public Prosecutor General (Germany), which gives the names of all arrested persons as first name + first letter last name (for example: Birgit M.-W.). Here we have "Heinrich XIII P. R.", obviously the Public Prosecutor General gives us "Heinrich XIII" as the person's first name and "P. R." = Prinz Reuß as the last name. No Heinrich Reuss, no Reuss of Köstritz or the like. We can assume that the Public Prosecutor names the arrested persons in a way that is strictly neutral and correct, without approving or denying any claims they may have.Ktiv (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may come as a surprise to you, but the position of German government agencies is also not neutral. While I don't specifically oppose the solution you're advocating, I don't think we should pretend that state agencies are neutral sources for people's names - in many countries (including Germany) there are notably biased national laws on what a person can be called. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the relevance for our discussion. His legal name is Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß, he is not noble, and also the name he uses himself is the exact same. The only reason to use another name in the WP might be if he was known publicly by another name which is not the case because in English-speaking press there are dozens of variants used: I saw Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss, Prince Henry XIII, Prince Heinrich XIII. of Reuss, Heinrich Reuss, Henry Reuss, Prince Reuss, Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuss, Reuß, Heinrich Reuß, Prinz Heinrich Reuss XIII and a lot of other variants but none of it is used very often. StTropez83 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also please compare other Germans of the 20th century which are descent from former noble families, they are all listed under their civil German name: Otto Graf Lambsdorff (and not Otto, Count of Lambsdorff) or Richard von Weizsäcker (and not Richard, Baron of Weizsaecker). StTropez83 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be a consensus to use either Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss or Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß as his civil name for the lemma, we should decide if we use the English or the German styled writing. I have no preference. StTropez83 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined towards anglicizing the double S sound as opposed to keeping the German character. Maximilian775 (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss (rather than Reuß) as less startling orthography. Mick gold (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative of "Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss" as 1) the legal name and 2) probably the most consistently common version used across English-language media. Most other uses are variations of this as well ("Prince Reuss" for example). "Heinrich Reuss" is almost never used at all in reference to any one individual and should be converted to a redirect or dab page. ansh.666 17:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss. There are umpteen people by this name and he is not the primary one. Create a disambiguation page at the basename. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All those individuals linked were actual royalty, unlike the subject of this article. Where they are styled according to their full name, the subject of this article is styled according to policy for non-royals, per above discussed policy. Indeed, adding a jumble of Roman numerals makes it harder to distinguish him from his ancestors/distant-and-deceased family. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant. He is still not the primary person by this name and therefore should not be at the basename. Indeed, adding a jumble of Roman numerals makes it harder to distinguish him from his ancestors/distant-and-deceased family. How so? It actually makes it very easy to distinguish him. The BBC used XIII to describe him. It also used "Heinrich XIV, Fürst Reuss" to refer to the head of the family. All those individuals linked were actual royalty, unlike the subject of this article. That's actually quite funny. So you're willing to accept that they were royalty until a decree of the German state said they weren't! A family doesn't just stop being royalty because a government says it does. Royalty is royalty. The German state no longer recognises his title, but it can't actually alter his royal lineage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the German government making a law is exactly how that works. Per WP:SOVEREIGN #7 (a portion of WP:NCROY), pretenders such as Reuss should be styled without an ordinal–even though there is regular usage of his middle name that includes it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, the ordinal of Reuss' name is not royal or sovereign in any sense -- it's a family custom (albeit odd) that German state law recognizes. i would point to the arrest documents that {{Ktiv}} posted above -- "There is a press information of the Public Prosecutor General (Germany), which gives the names of all arrested persons as first name + first letter last name (for example: Birgit M.-W.). Here we have "Heinrich XIII P. R.", obviously the Public Prosecutor General gives us "Heinrich XIII" as the person's first name and "P. R." = Prinz Reuß as the last name."
    This, combined with the growing press consensus to include the non-royal ordinals - Reuters [2], the Washington Post [3], and NBC News [4] seems to point somewhat clearly to a consensus emerging. Maximilian775 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SOVEREIGN, "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them". We have sources that use them, sources that don't. If we see this continue or someone executes a full survey of the various permutations in specifically English media, we can hold a new vote for moving (or not moving) to the most common name. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how WP:SOVEREIGN is relevant here, he is not a sovereign and he never would have been one even if nobility would still exist and he is not even a pretender because he never claimed to be a sovereign. The only thing he claimed was that he WANTED to overthrow the government. ;-) Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss is his civil name, it is the used himself (he did not use it in any other form) and it is a name commonly used in English-speaking media. They use also a lot of variations but none of it is dominant. StTropez83 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So unless anyone has a strong reason why his legal name should not be the article‘s title I do not see why we should use another name. StTropez83 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing some from a historic regal family (as they were indeed princes), so the policies of WP:NCROY inform WP:COMMONNAME here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Heinrich XIII is a relative to people who were royalty in the past does not make him royalty. NCROY still does not apply. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the German government making a law is exactly how that works. No, it really doesn't. Saying a family is no longer royal is like saying they are no longer Bavarian or no longer Jewish. The state has no moral right to remove a family's identity (they may claim they have the legal right to do so, but that would be straying into totalitarian territory and would not be recognised by any decent country). They can choose not to recognise their title, but a family's identity is immutable. He remains a member of a royal family, whether you or the German government approve of that or not. And all this is, in any case, completely and utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia's naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobility is a legal status, appeals to "moral right" (especially when equating the revocation of hereditary titles is tantamount to identity-based erasure) need to be based in reliable sourcing, otherwise that's just trying to right a wrong. Reliable sourcing maintains a consensus that the family is no longer noble but that Reuss is merely a "descendant" (see [5], [6], [7]; Rolling Stone disagrees) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobility is not a legal status. Some states may like to think it is, but it is not. You cannot remove a family's ennobled status just because some republic would like to; this is going against history. Reliable sourcing maintains a consensus that the family is no longer noble. I don't think it does. Reliable sourcing clearly continues to generally refer to German noble families, including the Reuss family, as noble families. You really shoot down your own case by citing sources that refers to him as "Prince Heinrich XIII Reuss" and "a German prince" and refer to "his aristocratic family", "a German royal family" and "the royal House of Reuss"! If referring to him as "Prince" doesn't confirm his noble/royal status then what does? But, as I have already said several times, none of this is relevant to article titling on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite my nomination to move to Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss of Köstritz, the rationale is more to disambiguate the current article title. Much of the opposition are thus far to the proposed title, which is expected and am frankly fine with any alternative titles.
At heart of the discussion is whether to use the royal title 'Prince' or variants that denotes the (royal) nobility in the title. Here is what written in WP:NCROY in full Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use.
This article has been live for about a week. A search on Google News using the term 'Heinrich Reuss' shows English news sources reporting him as:
Note again, it is just using the search term 'Heinrich Reuss' and the common trend in the reporting is variants of Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss. Therefore, by NCROY (and also COMMONNAME), there is a case for Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss or its variants as the article title. This is also a general consensus of those supporting a move.
Making it clear, I support a move to Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss or Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss (for orthography purposes, if we are sticking to his legal name). As a compromise on not recognising royal/noble titles, we can use the {{Family name hatnote}}, or similar templates if there are more appropriate ones, at the top of the article to produce:
In this German name, the surname is Prince Reuss. {{Family name hatnote|Prince Reuss|lang=German}}
or
In this German name, the surname is Prinz Reuss. {{Family name hatnote|Prinz Reuss|lang=German}}
to indicate that Prince/Prinz is not a (defunct) royal title, but part of the civil surname as legally allowed. And yes, either revert Heinrich Reuss to a redirect of Imperial County of Reuss, or establish a separate dab page for those who are named similarly. – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Robertsky's points, noting that a dab is now active and I think we can all agree that should a move take place we should move Heinrich Reuss (disambiguation) to the Heinrich Reuss slot. Disagree that a move consensus currently exists, strongly agree with the proposed move should be to Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss if anywhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti eh... i didn't say that there's a move consensus, rather it is a consensus among those who support for a move to Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss or its variants (which is a majority of the editors supporting here, as well as some who oppose to the original title). As for the evaluation if there is a general consensus, I leave it to the closer. – robertsky (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal of Pbritti. Move should be to Heinrich XIII Prince Reuss. The ordinal number is essential because of the many Heinrichs, currently 30 living, and it is not a "middle name" but an addition to the first name, which is unique in this family and necessary because all male family members have the same first name. There is no other way to tell them apart. Since counting begins anew with each new century, one and the same ordinal number occurs only once per century, which largely, if not entirely, excludes confusion. In the German passport, the ordinal number is placed after the first name (Heinrich), which then (according to aristocratic tradition) may be followed by several other first names (middle names). The question of whether Prinz or Prince is secondary. Since we are in the world of the English language here, I would prefer the English version as it is more understandable. Nobody doubts that the House of Reuss is historically a princely dynasty. The spelling Reuss (instead of Reuß) is essential because most English keyboards don't even have the "ß". Inexperienced English native speakers often mistake the unknown German "ß" for a B (and then pronounce it like this). -- Equord (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Support a move to Heinrich Prinz Reuss, but i Strongly Oppose any versions with Prince instead of Prinz, it's his surname, and no title, translating it would be just wrong and contrafactual Norschweden (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. -- JBL (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid confusion: could you also live with the less ambigious Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss since all his family members have the same name? StTropez83 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I summarize the late discussion almost everybody seems to prefer or at least be fine with Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss although there was a lot of confusion in the very early discussion because to some it was not clear that it is his legal name. I won‘t do the move of the page since I was heavily involved in the discussion but please could anyone more neutral than me check the latest opinions and move it to Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss? Thanks! StTropez83 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see slightly different suggestions in some rare cases but no strong support for any particular alternative. Do we all agree so far? StTropez83 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose let's not over-complicate things and by doing so legitimize his reichsbürgerishe claim of royalty. He is just Heinrich Reuss with unusual middle names "XIII Prinz" which are just are feudal atavisms. --87.170.205.18 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you follow the discussion which has already been going on for 11 days, you'll see that "Prinz Reuß" is his legal last name, not a made-up middle name. Also there is a strong consensus to avoid the made-up name "Heinrich Reuss" not only because it is confusing since hundreds of his ancestors had the same name (all members of the Reuss family are called Heinrich if they are male) but also to avoid the impression "Prinz" was a title you could just leave away, it's his civil last name. StTropez83 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After some random move by someone not involved in the discussion, now moved to Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss which seems to have by far the strongest support here. After 14 days of discussion, it‘s time to move on. :) StTropez83 (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StTropez83: You must immediately move the article back to Heinrich Reuss; moving the article to something else entirely was out of policy. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Who can close requested moves. You're an involved editor on this page and discussion; you should have solicited a closer if you believe the discussion is over. I know you weren't the first to move it, but that user was wrong, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That‘s what I tried first but WP does not allow me to move it to Heinrich Reuss. If you have an idea how to move it back, feel free. But I‘d prefer if anyone would close the discussion. ;-) StTropez83 (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Heinrich Reuss is now redirecting to the disambiguation page for the dozens of Heinrich Reuss on WP. I‘m rather new to WP and do not know how to solve this. StTropez83 (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StTropez83: It's at the topic of this discussion: you need to go to WP:CR and request a closure. If you can't do the thing you're supposed to do, remember that there are many admins that can and will respond promptly. This isn't a big deal, but I do want you to be the one that fills out the closure request. I understand that you are new, which is why asking for help is never a bad idea. You acted in good faith, so no harm, no foul. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I learned on WP:CR the following: „Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.“ But I understand you oppose that there‘s a consensus so I‘ll ask on CR page for closure. StTropez83 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti, @StTropez83. I have reverted the page back to the stable title. – robertsky (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure requested on WP:CR StTropez83 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StTropez83:"We use the "full civil, legal name"" - this is incorrect.
Example: Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg → his full civil, legal name would be: Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Buhl-Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. His surname (Hauptname), according to German law, is Buhl. Not Guttenberg.
Noble titles were abolished after World War I, but many erstwhile aristocratic families avidly track their lineage. Every family/region has its own rules, which you do not know. We should not emulate them.
"We do not translate person names" - this is incorrect. We do. All. the. time.
Examples:
  • pt João I de Portugal → John I of Portugal
  • pt Afonso de Bragança, Duque do Porto → en Afonso, Duke of Porto → de Alfons Heinrich von Portugal
  • es Enrique XIII Prinz Reuss → Heinrich Reuss
You are not only trying to impose your limiting views and opinions here in WP:en with Pickelhaube and Bajonett, but in the other WP language versions also. --87.170.200.162 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting yourself. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is not "Carl Theodore, Baron of Guttenberg" in enWP. And yes, you got me, sometimes we shorten a name from nine first names and a two-kilometer-long last name. But that doesn't matter much here. His civil last name is "Buhl-Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg." If you don't believe me, just search for "Guttenberg" in the German commercial register: www.handelsregister.de. StTropez83 (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you mention – apart from Prinz Reuß – are actual royals. Prinz Reuß is just a guy who has noble ancestors. I said: we don‘t translate civil names of non-nobles like Otto Graf Lambsdorff (not Otto, Duke of Lambsdorff) or Richard von Weizsäcker (not Richard, Baron of Weizsäcker). That‘s all. StTropez83 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just move-protected the page for a fortnight, because it kept being moved around. Everyone, please stop that, as that's disruptive and let this discussion run its course. If the discussion is closed formally before protection expires, please ping me and I'll unprotect it. Salvio 11:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Family[edit]

Tabloids name his wife and son born 1991. I urge editors to find good sources. I haven't been able to.

I note that Reuss mentions his Iranian wife and two children in this 1998 source where he makes the point that he can't imagine relocating them to Gera. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/heinrich-xiii-prinz-reuss-erbe-einer-700jaehrigen-fuerstentradition-will-geras-jugendstil-theater-und-einiges-mehr-zurueckbekommen-ein-bisschen-mitreden-moechten-wir-schon-li.20089?pid=true

Rutsq (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post comes up with this: "The prince reportedly has or had an Iranian-born wife, Susan Doukht Jalali — a naturopath who calls herself Princess Susan Reuss — with whom he shares a son, Heinrich XXVIII." https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/who-is-prince-heinrich-xiii-arrested-in-german-overthrow-plot/amp/

Rutsq (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the NY Post WP:RS?
Maximilian775 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not flagged by WP as unacceptable, but it's more tabloid than not. Note that in this instance the Post is not actually reporting information but use reportedly, which means they haven't verified this info but are telling us what others are reporting. I wouldn't use it. Rutsq (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this blog that's probably not WP:RS has more information about family... http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2022/12/german-prince-24-others-arrested-for.html Maximilian775 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He married Susan Doukht Jaladi, an Iranian, in Frankfurt on August 1, 1989.  This was a morganatic marriage according to Reuss family statutes, which meant it was not recognized as equal although this status does not exist in German law as titles have ceased to exist since August 1919 and the establishment of the then Weimar Republic.  Titles are a part of one's surname.
They had two children, Elena (1989) and Heinrich XXVIII (1991) before the marriage was dissolved by divorce.  Susan calls herself Princess Susan Reuss.  She is a "certified alternative practitioner with numerous additional training for special treatment methods."   According to Susan's personal website, her daughter, Elena, has Down Syndrome."
i emailed the blog author asking for more information and possible citations... Maximilian775 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Daily Mirror was already being used in the infobox, I used that, even though it's not ideal quality, along with his wife's website and the article I cited above. What's mostly clearly missing is a halfway decent source for their divorce. I don't think there's reason to add more about her, though I suppose if I had a better source than her website for her UNESCO work that would make a suitable addition. Rutsq (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That and a corroborating source about their daughter would be nice to have...Maximilian775 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My inquiry to the writer of the above blog portion i copy/pasted got this reply:
"You can genealogical information about the Reuss family in the editions of the Handbuch des Adels and the Gothaisches Genealogisches Handbuch, which is the successor to the Handbuch des Adels which was the successor to the Almanach de Gotha.  The Reuss family was included in the 2015 edition.  The morganatic descendants are included at the back of the book.  This would apply to Heinrich's marriage."
Maximilian775 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances of Denouncement by Family[edit]

I think there is more to the circumstances of the greater House of Reuss denouncing Heinrich as described in the second paragraph of "Conspiracy theories and controversy", but I cannot read German and don't think it's suitable to entirely rely on browser translation for something like that -- could an editor fluent in both German and English take a look? Maximilian775 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you think there's more to the story? I've made some changes. It appears the family wants in the first instance to avoid getting mixed up in local politics, and then that the politician in question is objectionable as to his views and his behavior. Rutsq (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Solely because I'm working from English quotations of the story, as I do not know German, but my Google Translation of the cited story seems to say that the assault of the journalist is tied up in Reuss' presence at the party? Not sure. Maximilian775 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the mayor attacked a journalist who asked why Reuss was invited. But not the family's concern. Rutsq (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ahh, okay. Thanks for clarifying. Maximilian775 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to be read here in english: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/world/europe/germany-prince-heinrich-xiii.html and https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/prince-putsch-and-his-gang-the-motley-crew-that-wanted-to-topple-the-german-government-a-07a32d7c-96e6-4b61-a282-9e9ab2ffa288 --91.54.4.197 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion Day[edit]

I would urge re-addition of that fact and reference under Economical & historical views. It gives a more balanced feel of his views. Elmenhorster (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this article http://www.fowpal.org/video/global-responses/heinrich-xiii-prinz-reuss from the Federation of World Peace and Love? He says something anodyne and inarticulate about peace and love and hope. There's nothing there. Rutsq (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Wikipedia link to the UN-backed initiative. It was in the article until ~today. Many UN General Assembly-backed initiatives are of similar notability, but it is interesting that Reuss was involved with a global governance agency (UN) around a beneficial-sounding initiative. I'd like it to be included for balance, too; having lived to age 71 without criminal convictions the guy is clearly not a monster.
As for his eloquence, he's not great but what he has said is not quite gibberish, either. 213.203.182.254 (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We needn't have any of the words he said—the man does have a tendency towards incoherency—but a sourced statement of his presence at an event organized by a vaguely mainstream body associated with the UN is valid. If we were talking about the pope, this would be trivial and overly specific. However, it's one of the few pre-coup plot sources on his life. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found it and re-added it under Views. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disputed text[edit]

Dispute initially raised by blocked malicious editor. No discussion of consequence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this text, which is a matter of dispute:

Reuss gave a speech accusing the Rothschilds and Freemasons of responsibility for the wars of the 20th century, expressing antisemitic conspiracy theories

The question would seem to be whether the last phrase is a fair characterization of the sentence. Rutsq (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for surfacing this.
Reuss does not say so but NBC's interpretation is unambiguously this. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fair for Anti-defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center; and for American media which comply with characterizations by such lobby groups.
Non-Americans would probably be much more doubtful about veracity of such conclusions. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, "accusing" of "responsibility" is charged language and seems to be interpreting from a non-impartial standpoint, just like perhaps the NBC. The tone of his presentation was not accusatory, he mentioned it in passing in one sentence or less. The phrasing implies he gave the speech primarily for the purpose of accusing the 2, but the speech was about a range of topics, under an unrelated title, and neither of those was anti-Semitic.Elmenhorster (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To record every reliable source reference to Reuss's comments being antisemitic would be impossible and risk mischaracterizing every source as coming to that conclusion independently. However, here are three: The New York Times, The Week, NBC. To characterize this as commentary from NBC rather than a consensus appraisal of his comments is self-evidently wrong. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To characterize as consensus sum of 2 American and 1 British-American publications is a bit rich, but more importantly, could you please specify what Reuss said that was anti-Semitic and why? Help us connect the dots. Thank you. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NBC is the only one of the 3 currently referenced in the article, or am I wrong? Elmenhorster (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I so wish you would specify what your sources actually say so I could do less work:
The Week: "his antisemitic screeds" (without backing it up - what, where, when, how exactly)
NYT: paywall. Would you specify what NYT is actually saying? Elmenhorster (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT source reads: "In January 2019, he gave a lecture at the WorldWebForum in Zurich, Switzerland, that was titled 'Experience the rise and fall of the blue-blooded elite.' In the 15-minute speech, he railed against the Rothschild family and claimed World War I was forced on the German kaiser by international financial interests — both common antisemitic dog whistles — and that modern democratic Germany was just an illusion." Of course, reliably sourcing a statement generally does not require a multitude of citations, but feel free to add the NYT one if you need it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"railed against the Rothschild family" - he mentioned the name once in passing.
"international financial interests" may have been an anti-Semitic dog whistle pre-globalization when Adolf H. was a young man, but in 2019? Come on. All financial interests are international and Asians must be running the thing (if anybody does run it). Elmenhorster (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that back in the day Adolf H. just said "Jew(s)". He did not have to veil it as IFI. All of this reeks of American-centric single interpretation of everything (starting with the World Championship in American football or whatever they have there). Elmenhorster (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"expressing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories"
From what I've seen he did not express (focus on) any theories. He also did not seem to refer to anything identifiable as one or another conspiracy theory (if he did I would like to know which ones, exactly).
I'm thinking about the minimum threshold of what he would have needed to say to be characterized as anti-Semitic...For example, "Jews did x". For the Freemasons part he would have to have said that "Freemasons were Jews" or "created by Jews" or something along such lines. Were those dogwhistles? Dogwhistles are for mass audiences were they can be deciphered. This is not it. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the academic he mentions is not some sort of marginal crank: Christopher Clark
Should we include this somewhere? Elmenhorster (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He also mentions another thing on Wikipedia: Novus ordo seclorum Elmenhorster (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

Reuss gave a speech in which he said the Rothschilds and Freemasons were responsible for the wars of the 20th century,[news citation] which are commonly recognized as antisemitic conspiracy theories.[citation needed]

Then let that interpretation be documented by sources distinct from a single NBC story. Academic sources on right-wing tropes would be ideal. Shouldn't be hard.

Meanwhile I'm watching the speech. 16 minutes. As far as I've gotten, Reuss also believes the Rothschilds financed the French Revolution "and countless other acts of aggression such as wars around the globe with the sole objective of establishing corporate structures and the business of money and debt by abolishing the monarchies". We should expand our quotes to let him speak for himself. Rutsq (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmenhorster: I think Wikipedia policy favors three major publications with a history of reliability over the personal interpretation of an editor. But thanks for sharing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rutsq: I can appreciate your objective of trying to bridge the gap here but current sourcing (and additional discussed sources) make it clear that his comments are antisemitic, not simply able to be interpreted as such. Since apparently the nationality of the sources is important to Elmenhorster (they are absolutely not), here are some additional sources: "He then trotted out several well-worn antisemitic tropes", DW and "Auch er bedient antisemitische Verschwörungserzählungen, die eine der Stützen der 'Reichsbürger'-Szene sind.", Frankfurter Rundschau. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree is substance. Your news citations should all use "quote=" so that the precise language they use is readily apparent. Rutsq (talk)
If we quote him his extremism will be readily apparent. Rutsq (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rutsq: Go ahead and quote him, that's perfectly fine. But you can't do that at the expense of contextualizing it with sourcing that explicitly describes it as WP:FRINGE, which your suggestion above appears to do. However, quoting him would require a translation, so just be sure that the translation is sourced so that we don't run afoul of BLP standards (especially since you think this will hoist him by his own petard). ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the phrase "which are commonly recognized as antisemitic conspiracy theories" and suggested you footnote it. Nothing "at the expense of" at all. In addition to as I explained above. Rutsq (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HE DELIVERS THE SPEECH IN ENGLISH. HAVENT YOU WATCHED IT? Rutsq (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not watched the only available primary material on topic, in English? Elmenhorster (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let him speak. Otherwise giving his ideas semi-reputable if niche labels like "monarchism" is fool's errand - it's being too generous; considering the very limited material about him available Reuss is a specific niche of a niche - textbook definition of what an extremist is. Generalizations and labels are too wide.Elmenhorster (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The version I have is dubbed in German (via his only once-used Archive.org account). Using all caps like that is hilariously wrong. You have been told to quit that before; don't do that again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used all caps to get your attention with a very brief comment in the middle of this dense back and forth. Rutsq (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree more re: quoting the video directly more. Adding this would test love of free speech in a few fellow editors, I'm sure.
What Reuss saying on the topic is not new - a valid opinion, not particularly controversial (not marginal); sadly he does not specify in detail. Regarding involvement of Rothschilds in financing European wars pre-20th century (not sure about exact cut-off date) is established scholarship; Rothchilds never denied it either. Then as now lending to governments is a valid business - ever since the Medici (not Jewish) in Renaissance Italy and even before. I'm pretty sure they did not lend for wars only, but overall specialized in lending to sovereigns (monarchs) who were often financially ruined by wars and/or common economic mismanagement, which made them open to regime change. I'm not aware of Reuss saying that Rothschilds went into banking because they were of the Jewish faith, or that they lent money to ruin their debtors, or that their Jewishness figures in this in any form at all. Elmenhorster (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not thinking aloud too much here - just one more mental exercise. So what is Reuss actually saying? I'll offer an attempt at secularized translation:
"A family banking syndicate financed a regime change (monarchy>republic) in France and other wars around the globe with sole objective of establishing corporate structures and the business of money and debt by abolishing the monarchies". Should this opinion of history be allowed to exist? I say, why not. Elmenhorster (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elmenhorster has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.--91.54.2.1 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obama quote[edit]

Speaking to World Web Forum, Reuss quotes Obama saying "Germany is an occupied country and it will stay that way." That quote is debunked and identified as "Another piece of “evidence” presented on nearly all Reichsbürger websites and brochures" here: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/germanys-new-mini-reichs/ Rutsq (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:SYNTH. If you can find a source on the Reuss-Obama quote and its debunking, add it. A cursory search reveals this connection has not been made in reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Today Thallwitz Castle is neglected."[edit]

Says who? Unreferenced. When is "Today"? Unspecified. Dgndenver (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pronounced feature[edit]

This article reads "Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss (German: Heinrich XIII. Prinz Reuß, pronounced [ˈhaɪnʁɪç deːɐ̯ ˈdʁaɪˌtseːntə pʁɪnts ˈʁɔʏs];" but, while the article is in English, what language this is: haɪnʁɪç deːɐ̯ ˈdʁaɪˌtseːntə pʁɪnt . . . I can't read that so I have no helpful hint on pronunciation. ?? Actionmoviefreak (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet. (If you click on the link in the article, it will open Help:IPA/Standard German). --slg (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does the numbering work?[edit]

QQ,it got me confused reading the article the father is I (one) but he and his son are well beyond that? I think a clarification would help. Thanks! 2A02:1406:14:FBDB:1CB3:79BA:625E:A702 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:1406:14:FBDB:1CB3:79BA:625E:A702 All male members of the Reuss family are named Heinrich, so they are distinguished by numbers in chronological order, regardless of being rulers or not. They start again with the number I at the beginning of every century, so the first prince born in a new century is named and numbered Heinrich I, the second one Heinrich II, and so on. This goes throughout all the family branches, so if Heinrich I has two sons, but his cousin Heinrich IV has one son born between them, Heinrich I's sons would, for example, be Heinrich X and XII, but Heinrich IV's son would be Heinrich XI. --slg (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heinrich_XIII_Prinz_Reuss&oldid=1225024153"