Talk:Charlemagne

add a page

There are many contempory media portraits of charlemegne. Some are mentioned but there's a lot more, I think it'd be cool to get a page dedicated to that is like the layout of the wives/concubines page(just a list with brief descriptions and hyperlinks to other wikipages where possible). If you'd like I could name a few movies/TV shows/documentaries/songs that mention him or portrays him. I don't really know how to add something(and honestly dont really care to learn) but I could add some references and sources if people like this idea and would be willing to add this page. 2603:6011:2C00:3C5:9759:7B9B:C3EC:AD75 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlemagne/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Seltaeb Eht (talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Starting the review. More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 10:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

From a first canter-through looking for typos etc my first comment is that although the article is generally in BrE – centre, colour, favour, honour, metres, neighbouring, Sepulchre, spectre – the odd AmE spelling has crept in: neighbors, traveled. Most noticeable of all is the inconsistency of –ise and –ize forms. We have emphasised and we have emphasizes, recognised and recognized, standardised and standardized. Other –ise endings in the text are canonised, characterisations, Christianised, criticising, finalised, harmonise and idealised; other –ize forms are baptized, characterized, legitimized, organization, popularized and realizing.

I'll begin a proper study of the text next. Meanwhile pray ponder the above points. Tim riley talk 10:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! It was a long labor to rewrite this article, and it received an excellent and thorough first GA review (which RL prevented me from completing), and has had a copyedit since. Thank you for helping get it over the finish line.

On English usage - yes, the article should be in BrE - it was tagged as such when I arrived, and the more prominent English-language scholars are from the UK. But as an American, I and my spellchecker often slip, so any catches on those are welcome. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I must make it clear at the outset that the following are merely my suggestions, to be acted on or rejected as you see fit. I have found nothing in the text that I think must be changed to meet the GA criteria.

• Names

• "A number of languages were spoken in Charlemagne's world" – if you say "a number of…" the reader is likely to ask what the number was. Safer to say "many" or "several" if you don't know the number.

• Good suggestion, changed

• Early life and rise to power

• "practiced by the Franks" – practised, if we're in BrE

• changed

• Birth

• "German scholar Karl Werner" – clunky tabloidese false title, easily remedied by a definite article before the phrase. Ditto later in the text for German historian Johannes Fried, Historian Janet Nelson, Historian Rosamond McKitterick, Historian Henry Mayr-Harting, contemporary Byzantine chronicler Thophanes and historian Jennifer Davis.

• Clunky implementation of a good suggestion at the previous GAN, all revised.

• "but it cannot be proven – in English (though not in Scottish) usage "proved" rather than "proven" is usual.

• changed

• Language and education

• "German historian Johannes Fried" – is his nationality relevant?

• No, and removed from him and others

• Accession and reign with Carloman

• "but modern historians dispute this" – all modern historians or just some of them?

• It is the consensus - open to better suggested wording because I agree it's not great as is. The intended contrast is between what Carolingian propoganda represented (and some general audience works repeat today) vs. what today's historians actually say.

• "does not say whether Charles and Himiltrude ever married, were joined in a non-canonical marriage (friedelehe), or if married after Pepin was born" – do we want the "if" here?

• Omitting it reads much better, thanks!

• King of the Franks and the Lombards

• "the pagan irminsul – we capitalise the noun throughout our Wikipedia article on the topic. I merely mention it and don't presume to express an opinion.

• Reviewing my books, it does seem to be capitalized more often than not. Great catch

• Building the dynasty

• "under the care of regents and advisors" – according to the current (2015) edition of Modern English Usage the form "adviser" as opposed to "advisor" is "nearly three times as common across all varieties of English, and so the traditional spelling still predominates"

• Thanks, great catch. I was letting some of my professional usage leak in

• Saxon resistance and reprisal

• "convinced him to end his resistance" – a touch of WP:ENGVAR here. In BrE one convinces someone that and persuades him to.

• Didn't know that - good to know! changed

• Continued wars with the Saxons and Avars

• "lasted through 799" – does this mean "throughout" or "until"?

• Until, but inclusive of, 799

• Coronation

• "French scholar Henri Pirenne" – as with Herren Werner and Fried earlier, I'm not certain his nationality is all that relevant here. Or am I wrong?

• Not relevant, removed

• Governing the empire

• "more-sedentary rule" – I don't think I'd hyphenate this

• Agreed, I think one of the CE may have done so

• "focused on internal governance … increasingly focused" – rather too highly focused: perhaps a variant the second time?

• Revised this as I realized that it wasn't quite still making the same point as it was meant to. Let me know what you think.

• "requiring that all free men take an oath of loyalty to him" – to the emperor presumably but this doesn't say so.

• Indeed, specified Charlemagne

• Religious impact and veneration

• "Frederick Barbarossa convinced Antipope Paschal III to elevate Charlemagne – see comment above on "convince"

• Changed to persuaded

• Bibliography

• I avoid the heading "Bibliography" as it can equally mean "Publications about…" or "Publications by…" As there aren't any publications by Charlemagne it doesn't matter here, but even so I think "Sources" is clearer.

• I take your point, and see that's the usage on recent FAs. Changed

That's all from me for now. This article seems to me to have the potential for FAC, and if you take it on to that stage I shall have some pickier comments on some of the prose, but it will unquestionably suffice for GA. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions, User:Tim riley - a couple left open above for your further comment ("but modern historians", "through 799", and "focused" comments).

Don't know about FAC, we'll see - a lot of work just to get it here, and related articles are still in need of a lot of attention. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All fine now. And so:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jumpy542 talk 22:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Charlemagne owned an elephant which he received as a gift from the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid?

• Source: Paul E. Dutton, Charlemagne's Mustache: And Other Cultural Clusters of a Dark Age, pp. 59-61

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Seltaeb Eht (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The hook and the article have no problems; this is my second review, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. TheNuggeteer (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

To Prep 1

Who the fuck is Roger Collins?

He has a Wikipedia page, but regardless of his prominence he in "Medievology" or whatever, one person saying something sensational like "Charlemagne was an illegitimate child" isn't worthy of an encyclopedia blurb. Case closed. Octaazacubane (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer the topline question, Collins is indeed an eminent medievalist and his book was probably the standard English-language biography on Charlemagne until Nelson published hers in 2019.

Collins is certainly reflective of some older trends in scholarship (partially owing to the fact his book is over 25 years old).

It seems it was pretty in vogue to cast Charlemagne as illegitimate, and it's still pretty prevalent in pop culture. But this is usually based off of the 742 birthdate.

Collins' 749 date for the marriage is cited to paper in German by Becher from 1989, "Drogo und die Konigserhebung Pippins". However, Becher in his 2005 biography gives 744 as the date of Pippin's marriage to Bertrada (p. 34) as does Nelson (p. 63). Without digging up Becher's paper, it's hard to know what underlying information the sentence in Collins is reflective of. I'm going to adjust it to reflect the marriage in 744. I feel like it was in there at one point, with the 749 date contrasting, but I don't think the latter needs to be represented at all unless it's present somewhere besides Collins.

While I might have asked it differently (though it definitely made it the topic jump out on my watchlist) :), thanks for bringing it up and putting some attention on the issue. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Seltaeb Eht, thank you for your diplomatic reply. Octaazacubane, MF got his book published with U of Toronto, which runs one of the best medieval programs in the world. Also, bro got a resume that's quite impressive. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Roger Collins is definitely a real one. His books are both readable and reliable. Though not infallible, in this case. I do wonder if he would support renaming medieval studies to Medievology. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, "Drogo und die Konigserhebung Pippins" is available from the WP library. I don't speak German, so take my reading with the assist of machine translation with many grains of salt, but it does appear to indicate a 744 marriage between Charlemagne's parents. The citation on that sentence in Collins may instead be for his use of Becher's work placing Charlemagne's year of birth (the entire sentence being "Charles was illegitimate, being born either in 747 or, more probably, in the Spring of 748; not till the next year did Pippin actually marry the boy's mother, Bertrada."). The reasoning for calling Charlemagne illegitimate in this case remains obscure to me. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Aren't all Europeans related to Charlemagne?

I don’t know if this has been discussed or not but aren’t all Europeans or people of European descent related Charlemagne?

I have been seeing sources talk about this nonstop. But I don’t seem to see it anywhere in the article.CycoMa2 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Because it's the least notable thing about the guy. I imagine most of the individuals in 9th-century Europe who became parents are direct ancestors of a large chunk of the present-day European population. Remsense ‥ 论 21:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I can definitely see that. But still I have seen tons of sources mention this or talk about this.

here

here

I just can’t seem to find an article about this and don’t know if any Wikipedia articles touch on this or not. When this thing appears to mentioned a lot in various sources.CycoMa2 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of Royal Descent page. But either I am too busy with school work or I don’t see any mention of most Europeans being descendants of Charlemagne.

Except this:

There has been a long tradition for royalty predominantly to intermarry those of their own class. As a result, the ruling houses of Europe have tended to be closely related to one another, and descent from a particular monarch will be found in many dynasties – all present European monarchs, and a great many pretenders, are genealogical descendants of William the Conqueror (1028–1087), for example, and further back in time of Charlemagne(742/747/748–814). Through Charlemagne, some researchers have even speculated on descent from antiquity.

The practice of restrictive marriages has been noted as increasing over the years until the 20th century: the passage of time strengthened the conviction that royalty only allied with royalty, and from the 16th century marriages between royal and commoner became rarer and rarer. This is one reason why descent from more recent monarchs is rarer amongst commoners than from monarchs further back.

Members of untitled families today may be descended from illegitimate children of royalty. Seldom permitted to marry into other royal families, these children tended to marry into upper-class or middle-class families within their own countries.

CycoMa2 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

But I don’t think it directly says most Europeans are descendants of him.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait did I misread your reply. Forgive me I doing school work while doing this.CycoMa2 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove section on "Veneration".

"Charlemagne has been the subject of artworks, monuments and literature during and after the medieval period and is venerated by the Catholic Church."

The veneration could be doubted as in "Held in respect" had it not linked directly to the page on beatification.

The actions of an Anti-Pope do not reflect on the Catholic Church and her official teachings. The beatification on an individual must be done with the permission of the Holy See, and as Paschal III was an Anti-Pope, this condition was not met. Therefore, he was not Venerated by the Catholic Church in the sense where "Veneration" is related to the state of Beatification. Cleric of Vecna (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)