Talk:William the Silent

"De Zwijger" should not be translated to "The Silent"

Translating the Dutch "De Zwijger" with "The Silent" gives the wrong impression. It should be "The Taciturn". --146.182.9.9 09:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a reference that supports this idea; as far as I now the Silent is the accepted translation Arnoutf 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it might be prudent to include in the article that the Dutch word "Zwijgen" doesn't have a direct translation into English. You are 'zwijgen' when you are silent, but you are not always 'zwijgen' when you are silent. It's a more active way of choosing to refrain to speak. In Dutch you don't take an oath of silence, you take on the duty to continue to 'zwijg'. --Vera (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I get the impression the Flemish more often use his nickname than do the Dutch. --Vera (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Whatever. It has always been William the Silent IN ENGLISH, and that is all that matters here. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Arnoutf asked on July 13th 2006 (UTC) a reference for the claim made by anonimous user 146.182.9.9

Apparently User Arnoutf hasn made much of an effort to look for the refence he asked from an anonimous editor. nor had he made any effort to refute the claim made. I'm not sure but Iḿ under the distinct impression that the contributors on this talk-page are not native enlgish speakers.

in the library of congress [1] an online pdf version of translated book translated by J.P. Lacroix. written in french book by L.Abelous, Publishe by Nelson& Phillips in 1872 titled "Willian The Taciturn" catalogued with subject "William I, Prince of Orange (1534-1584)

next oxford English dictionary translates the dutch word "zwijger" as taciturn and provides following description of the word :

Taciturn (of a person) reserved or uncommunicative in speech; saying little.

"This quiet and taciturn man has been as responsible as any individual for the rise in England's fortunes."

synonimous with : untalkative, uncommunicative, reticent, unforthcoming, quiet, secretive, tight-lipped, buttoned-up, close-mouthed, silent, mute, dumb, inarticulate, reserved, withdrawn

I have always learned the man was referred to as "the Taciturn rather then the silent. this position is supported by prof John Whitehead Historian based in Oxford, member of Oriel College, in his weblog page about William I Once I was a clever boy

Moreover I don't thin that this page should be named William the Silent after his nickname, but as any hitorical figure by his official name and or title which is William I, Prince of Orange then his nickname can be mentioned in the intro and referring pages can be made for both William I the Silent and William I the Taciturn which is historically correct and encyclopedically much more serious. --DerekvG (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Burden of proof lies with the one who wants to change long standing consensus. Was not me - so not for me to provide anything here..... Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 07 October 2014

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. SnowFire (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

William the Silent → William I, Prince of Orange – William the Silent is a Nickname and as a matter of fact badly translated nickname, because it should be William the Tacturn see reference to library of congress and Oxford dictionary in sujbect above on this page. DerekvG (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose on grounds offered. What matters is the name used in English which doesn't necessarily have to match a translation of the name in Dutch. See Johnbod above. The fact "taciturn" is the Dutch name is irrelevant. As for "nickname", well, we have William the Conqueror, so Wikipedia doesn't always use the number if such a modifier is better known... SnowFire (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds that

a) "the Silent" is a literal translation and a tacky translation made by non-native english speakers as the Oxford Dictionary shows translates the dutch word "zwijger" as taciturn and provides following description of the word :

Taciturn (of a person) reserved or uncommunicative in speech; saying little.

"This quiet and taciturn man has been as responsible as any individual for the rise in England's fortunes."

synonimous with : untalkative, uncommunicative, reticent, unforthcoming, quiet, secretive, tight-lipped, buttoned-up, close-mouthed, silent, mute, dumb, inarticulate, reserved, withdrawn

and in French William I is not called "le Silencieux" but "le Taciturne", he wasn't silent or "muet" in french, he was uncommunative

b) in the library of congress [2] an online pdf version of translated book translated by J.P. Lacroix. written in french book by L.Abelous, Publishes by Nelson& Phillips in 1872 titled "Willian The Taciturn" catalogued with subject "William I, Prince of Orange (1534-1584)

c) Morover I have always learned in my history courses that the Stadtholder of the Netherlands was referred to as "the Taciturn" rather then "the Silent". so is is not a fact that he is knwon "in English" as the Silent as user Johnbot claims,

d) this latter position is supported by prof John Whitehead Historian based in Oxford, member of Oriel College, in his weblog page about William I Once I was a clever boy, he writes that William should be named the Taciturn rather then "the Silent"

e) Moreover this historical figure prime reference should be by his official name and or title which is William I, Prince of Orange in from the 15th century in the Lowcounbtries and in Frande Kings and heads of state would be named with numbers and theri title not by their nickname, William the Conquerer lived in the 11th century and since the end of the Roman empire 476 AD kings and souvereigns were named - like their vassals - by their name and a qualifier, therefore the name he is known by the name William the Conquerer. My request to rename doesn mean that we cannot create referring pages titled "William I, the Silent" and "William I, the Taciturn" which is historically correct and encyclopedically much more serious. --DerekvG (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

f) while checking the Wikipedia page on naming conventions under the sections Neutrality, William the silent is a Colloquialism whereas my proposal to rename the page to "William I, Prince of Orange", is historically a more neutral without compromising the other aspects of naming als recognisability and ease of use and most histroical sources in English will refer to this person by the proposed title. --DerekvG (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• First off, you're the proposer, not a voter, so there's no need to "support", it's assumed you support your own move proposal.

Second: It's not a "colloquialism", it's a cognomen. See WP:COGNOMEN, the Wikipedia naming policy which explicitly endorses cognomens that are the main way a monarch is known. Many monarchs are much better known by such modifiers - Peter the Great, William the Conqueror, etc. Real historians use them *as their name*, not merely as a description. It simply does not matter if you don't think Pyotr Alexeyevich was all that great; he's still "Peter the Great" in English sources.

Third: The "more serious" and "more neutral" claim is flatly incorrect. "Serious" English sources use cognomens all the time. Google scholar hits for William the Silent: ~3500. Google scholar hits for William I, Prince of Orange: ~176. [3] [4]

Fourth: Did you read your own sources? http://onceiwasacleverboy.blogspot.be/2014/07/william-silent.html -> The title of this blog post is "William the Silent" and he is referred to as "William the Silent" throughout the article. The author says that his "epiphet should better be rendered as the Taciturn" in translation. The author is not proposing renaming William the Silent, and if he was, he acknowledges that in actual practice, he is still called William the Silent!

Your entire argument is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding. Names aren't "correct" or "incorrect", they just are. If "Willem de Zwijger" was usually known in English as "Lord Brocolli of Mars", that's what his article would be called, no matter how 'incorrect' or 'unserious' a translation it was. It would not matter that a few books or historians think a different name should be used. If you'd like to convince us that this article title is wrong, you need to show that "William I" is used in preference to William the Silent with the likes of the Google Scholar hits that I linked above. (Except that Scholar seems to show William the Silent is what's used.) SnowFire (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Re (a) Re-translating using the Oxford dictionary would be original research.

Re (b) An originally French book translated into English hardly gives confidence in fewer translation errors than the direct Dutch-English translation. Also, a single source does not constitute sufficient evidence as there are many sources in English that use Silent

Re (c) What you have always learned can only be used as input if you actually provide the reliable sources that can be accessed by all that were used in your learning.

Re (d) The point that an Oxford professor argues that it should be Taciturn instead of Silent supports that Silent is the more common name (although perhaps not best translated in the past, but that is not for us to judge). Hence the argument of the Oxford professor in fact supports the current title of this article.

Re (e) You appear to try to make the point that William the Conqueror should be known by his nickname but William the Silent not. However I just don't follow your arguments as they seem arbitrarily selected without a clear logic. If it is merely about date difference (people before 1500 may known by nickname) Catherine the Great is a point against your claim, as she lived about 200 yrs after William.

Re (f) Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the most commonly used name in daily discourse. That is William the Silent by about a factor 10. If you stand by your point this is not true you must give convincing evidence of the opposite; a mere claim will not do. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. William the Silent is by far the most common name used in English. Arnoutf (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unless an argument based on principles like using the commonly recognised name is offered. —innotata 05:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether it's a correct translation or not, that's how he's commonly known in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose on ground of all the arguments mentioned above. Bottom line is: he is in English known as "The Silent"--Watisfictie (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as there's a William II, William III etc etc & the nickname can be kept in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Google searches show use of William the Silent (293000 hits)[5] is 10 times more common than William the Taciturn (28000 hits) [6] with about 5000 listing both [7]. With William I Prince of Orange [8] scoring 28000 hits, again 10 times less common than William the Silent. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, it's not because google has 153million references "color" that I will start writing that word instead of "colour", neither will 4 million references to "tumor" convince me that the popular spelling of "Tumour" (neoplasm, with only 804 thousnad hits) is better , popular is like education if humanskind settles for what is most popular we would all be illiterates ... --DerekvG (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I will try to asnwer some of the arguments:

"colloquialism" or cognomen. I agree to the WP:COGNOMEN as a way a monarch is referred to. and I agree tp the statement that "Many monarchs are much better known by such modifiers - Peter the Great, William the Conqueror, etc." however its somewhat like discussing the colour of the sea or the taste of wine. I qualified William the Silent as a colloquialism and a bad translation made by non native speakers therefore I dismiss that name as a cognomen for THIS particular historic figure.

the statement that starts with "Real historians use ..." sounds like a "Real men..."-statement

The third argument that "The "more serious" and "more neutral" claim is flatly incorrect." is not validated by the number of Google hits, the number of hits validates a popularity-statement and it doesn't mean it's either serious , neutral or encyclopedic, but it does indicate that a referencepage redirecting that title to the correctly titled page is necessary (which I proposed)

You may question wether I Did read my sources? Indeed as you elequently quoted "The author says that his "epiphet should better be rendered as the Taciturn" in translation.", I didn't make a claim that "the author IS proposing renaming William the Silent" (neither do I, I think, that wasn't my intention anyway) what I propose doesn't imply that both "William the Silent" or it better variant "William the Taciturn" shoudl ceratinly be mentioned in a article about "William I, Prince of Orange"

My argument is not founded on wether names are "correct" or "incorrect", I don't claim they that the silent is incorrect i claim it a bad and litteral translation by non native speakers.

"Willem de Zwijger" is also in Dutch a colloquialisn and not the historic and scientific name, it is a validated second reference to the same person. The argument is that kings like Alexander the Great, or "Peppijn de Korte", "Karel Martel", "Karel de Goede" or "Lodewijk de Slechte" medieval kings in the low countries are indeed known by their Cognomen, like William the Conquerer that is what they are known by, that traditon lasted until the last of the brugundy dukes Philip I of Castille, known in the Netherlands by the name of "Philip the Handsome" (Filips de Schone) but from approx 1480 starting with philip's father Roman Emperor Maximilian I (Habsburg) kings and sovereigns in the Netherlands were referred to by their official name and number, starting with Maximillian's grandson and son of Philip Emperor Charles V (Charlesquint, Keizer Karel V) only nobility like Dukes, Counts and Earls etc.. were named without number and by their title designation and their territory. Which is why I qualify the name of "Willem the Zwijger" as a colloquialism rather then a cognomen, therefore i argue that those epiphets are not the best titles for this article.

Arnoutf says "Re (a) Re-translating using the Oxford dictionary would be original research."

I'm sorry original research would be to find and ethymological rule why Willem should not be translated as William but something else. Using a dictionary or to state the obvious, or using documents as refernce is not OR.

An original ninetheenth century translation by a scholar from French to English is indeed more reliable than any modern time Dutch-English translation by an amateur.

A single source reference from such a source does have more weight as evidence then are many popular sources

I have no access to my schoolbooks any more I'm slightly too old for that

The point that an Oxford professor argues that the epiphet should be translated to the Taciturn instead of the Silent actually supports the argument that the popular the Silent is a bad litteral translation and very unscientific

you mention that a i arbitrairly use William the Conqueror while being in consequent and prefer William I, Prince of Orange, refer to my earlier argument that the age of William the Conquerer Kings in the netherlands would be named by what seems like a cognomen a tradition that changed at a certain moment in time in England and around 1480 in The Netherlands , actually the Russian never made that change so your counter argument actually suppoprts my thesis because my argument is not linked to date only but to date and place and different for each combination.

Actually the WP:COMMONNAME is the only valid argument , but then again the we are talking about a popularity contest and not encyclopedic refernce --DerekvG (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Very long but I hope to refute some of your points.

• Bad translation does not matter at all as this is not an original translation/ - What kind of "translation" is the name Charlemagne?

• From approximately 1480 onwards. Please note that William is only 1 century later. So unless you give a truckload of references that the last ever cognomen ended before his time, I interpret his lifetime as approximately 1480.

• Where do you get the idea that the translation William the Silent is a modern translation? The installation of the statue at Rutgers university in 1928 proves it is at least older than that (and that one of the major US universities is ok with the name).

• If you can't provide the evidence (like your schoolbooks), you cannot bring it to the table - that is one of the core ideas of WP:V.

• You may consider WP:COMMONNAME a popularity contest, but it is a policy. If you disagree you have to change the policy. As long as it stands it guides how we edit this page. Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation : a translation happens when some word is taken from a language A and is subsequently translated in another language B . In this case the historic figure "Willem I Nassau, Prins van Oranje" aka. "Willem de Zwijger" Stadthouder of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, both are Dutch names given in the Netherlands, "William the Silent" although popular is a bad translation made by non native speakers, as it should be rendered as "the Taciturn" and afaik (but I'm looking for a refernce to support that statement) the latter epiphet was also used in England at Elisbethan times,

on the matter of the name of "Charlemagne" I don't understand what your are implying so please enlighten me, is it about the use of Charlemagne in English , the name Charlemagne in french, the ducth equivalent? please expatiate.

Please Arnoutf, get your history right : I didn't only cite the date I referred clearly to the relevant historic periods : I cited 1480 and Philip I of Castille (Habsburg) last duke of Burgundy to rule the Netherlands (closes the Burgundy period in the Netherlands, in the historic period of the late middle agea), and was known by his name Philip the Handsome (not by Philip I, which was how he was known in Spain though) in Dcuth history everbody knows Philip II son of Charles V but nobody can answers if you ask who is Philip I though , but they all know Philip the Handsome.. I cited his father MaximillianI and his son Charles V . Now Maximillian better known as the husband of Isabella concluded the Spanish reconquista in 1492 financed the expeditions of Christopher Columbus to the West over the Atlantic, dat at which conventionally the renaissance period and the contra reformation mouvement started in the Netherlands. If you think that "approximately 1480" the end of the late middle ages is the historic period in which Willem I, Philips II and the Duke of Alva are situated then the hisotrians of the low countries disagree with you. More over I said that the manner in which kings were named differs in the middle ages then in the renaissance period, and the date coincides roughtly 1480 give or take a decennium , not a century ...

You are seriously talking about a statue form the 1920-ies in a US university ?? seriously ? a country where history started 200 years ago, and that considers everything before 1779 the field of paleontology, erects a statue for a major european historic figure from the 16th century, and that is something you do not consider a modern translation ??

last but not least before you insist on a polocy as commonname, you should als consider the level above that about article titling and the other policies it also cites as equaly important as coomonname, and how it dismisses popularity contests, and yes if you use google citations in this way, it is a popularity contest (aka in Antwerp "de vetten os") --DerekvG (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have one question to you. Who did, for the first time, translate Willem de Zwijger into William the Silent. You repeatedly claim that it was not a native speaker of English so you must have a reliable source claiming who it was. Please enlighten me. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

PS While the United States does not have the oldest history of the world - Rutgers University (est 1766) predates the book you quote by more than 100 years. Talking about history. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf , without making this personal why do you turn every argument into a pissing contest? what has rutgers universities date of establishment to do with the publication date of a book, inn what does a building constitute a measure for serious reference? what makes a 1926 statue in a university a more reliable reference then a book ? the statue doesn say anything about who comissioned it , why and who decided on the inscription and what its content was (going to be) , especially if that monument is not the tombstone monument of the historic figure in question but a decoratiove /perhaps commemorative monument. I didn'talk about the library of congress as the reference, i did talk about the biography , a monography translated in english by a serious translator from a established writer , the reference is that book its content and those who wrote it author and translator and actually the french book and the resulting translation in english - that is waht my refernce poits to ... sorry about that rant but most google hits, my date is older than yours , ok you piss further then me, I do admit that, but perhaps my piss has ended up in the pot not splattered all over the wall , dubiuous comparison but spot on --DerekvG (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been asking for mainstream support for your claims; if you think of that request and the examples I gave that you would be unlikely to succeed as a pissing contest than I am sorry as that never has been my intention. You may on the other hand also consider your own stubborn repetition of claims without providing additional support your derogatory remarks about the United States; and your repeated claim it was a non native speaker who did the original translation that do not help. Arnoutf (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

closing the request

Thank you all contributors, I propose to close this move request and leave the title of the article as it stands, with "Move not executed" as clearly no consensus has been reached in favour of this move. Could a moderator make the closing changes Thank you very much--DerekvG (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no need for a moderator to withdraw a discussion, FWIW. SnowFire (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

further comments

Arnoutf , I'm sorry I shouldn't have phrased that in a personal way, I probably should have said that the value of a reference is not based on numbers, that itś not a pissing constest to determine which reference carries more weight based on the number of times it was referred to etc... anyway no personal attack intended and my apaologies, and Yes I'm stubborn, my user page confirms that.
I will however answer some of your remarks
Maybe my comment about the US could be considered derogatory, no such intention on my part, they are a mere statement of fact based on the lack of historical knowledge both in the general public and among higher educated people or in policy (and idem ditto for geographical awareness). It's my experience that historic events that happened outside the US borders or before the Declaration of independance are considered uninteresting and irrelevant, imho because of ignorance. History and geography are considered specialised fields of study for uni-nerds, and certainly not for the more important uni-jocks, I have not implied that historic study by US historians (also about subject outside that scope) is not valid or not expertly executed, becuase their research is as good as any other historians work.

Looking at history there a a number of reasons why "the silent" should be a bad rendering of the dutch "de zwijger":

• before any misunderstandings occur my statement doesn't imply that an wikipedia editor has mad that translation, it's much older and don't deny the obvious: "the silent" has been in used widely in different sources.
• first of all using the translation of "silent" for "zwijgen" or "zwijger" would indicate that the translator lacks english vocabulary, because that translation doesn't grasp the nuances incorporated in the dutch qualifier "de zwijger", whereas the translation "the taciturn" does
• secondly because if one does the inverse translation of "the silent" (using comparative techniques form literature with other earlier kings of the medieval era and how their names were translated, using french and latin) that would yield in dutch : "de stille". Translating that result back (using the same technique) to french yields "le muet" or in enlgish "the mute". However using the same method of transalting that "de zwijger" would yield in french "le taciturne" and in latin "taciturnus", using the word taciturn in english would require a higher then basic level of vocabulary, and an education that encompases latin and or french.
• In the article a section is about the epiphet : I quote reference 28 of that section "den swijger", "den Schweiger": Emanuel van Meteren, 1608 and 1614; cf. "Taciturnus": Famiano Strada, 1635. The Dutch historian Fruin (1864) has argued that this is in fact an erroneous rendering of the phrase "astutus Gulielmus", "cunning William", found in a Latin source of 1574 and attributed there to the Flemish inquisitor Pieter Titelmans. See Leiden University, De Tachtigjarige Oorlog. Willem de Zwijger.
• Why use complex methods of translation stepping through latin and french? a) we know that the inquisition used primarily Latin, the documents kept in many archives and museums prove that; b) in 16 and 17th century the royalty would use latin or french, contrary to popular belief the dutch court and nobility and at the english court french would be the vehicluar language in that period (dutch and english was for the peasants and the soldiers); and last bust not least c) one would have to look at how such transaltions came to be in that period of hirstory, most certainly in libraries in England documents will reside from the court dating of that period referring to William, Prince of orange in his contacts with the Enlgish court and such a nickname that indicates his gift of a special diplomatic quality (to use silence as a technique to obtain information) would most certainly be notified to the king in order to make sure that they negotiate at an equal level. Diplomats would use french and latin for their communications, such that only their masters and the clergy would be able to decypher the communications.
  

As for literature references, actually I don't have them readily available, and I would have it go to a library to collect them , which takes time, Yes, ican provide but not immediately.

Futhermore what is mainstream in not necessarily correct, or adequate. Encyclopedic knowledge is correct and dissipates confusing information which might have survived in popular sources. wikipedia should provide correct information. Which is why I did the survey above.

The historical correct information is that this king is called in the netherlands "William I, Prince of Orange" . And as I explained contrary to the kings of the medieval period (before approx. 1480) who were known by names such as "Filips de goede", "Karel Martel" - also the last duke of burgundy to rule the Netherlands Philip I of Castille, known in the Netherlands by the name of "Philip the Handsome" "(Filips de Schone)" rather then by his full title by which he was known in Spain - was the last king to be named by a cognomen , in dutch history. In dutch Willem van Oranje, is the most commonly used name rather then the a.k.a. Willem de Zwijger. That was my principal argument --DerekvG (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with history is that it is either a social science or part of arts and humanities (depending on classification). In these sciences there are hardly any issues that are outright "correct" or "wrong" and in my view the naming of William is one of these.

As you say, William is most commonly referred to as William of Orange (and not the rather cumbersome William I, Prince of Orange). However that does not work in English as William of Orange in English is used commonly for William of Orange (king of England) (Stadtholder William III).

Personally I still support William the Silent because of WP:Commonname. The first line mentions the other names so confusion is unlikely. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In the "Epithet" section, there is a long story that begins, "One day, during a stag-hunt . . ." I would recommend deleting this story because it is pointless and borderline nonsensical. I expected that it would explain why he was known as "William the Silent (or Taciturn)" but it really does not. Maybe I am missing something. Perhaps he held his tongue on a divisive issue and people thought he was wise for doing so. If that is the case, one could say as much in a single sentence. Ibnsina786 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Duchy or County?

In the image description of the picturesque engraving of the city, Nassau-Dillenburg is called a DUCHY... but in the accompanying text, William's rank is always referred to as COUNT of Nassau-Oranien. Wouldn't that mean that Dillenburg should be a literal County? As far as i can tell from going to school in Dillenburg, Graf and Grafschaft are the commonly used level of his aristocracy before the whole rebellion thing. Once he was mostly dealing with the netherlands he is usually referred to as steadholder/Statthalter but that should have no bearing on his german posessions, should it? --176.199.184.48 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up. Nassau was a county in the time of William to become a duchy in the 19th century. The wikilink was to the 19th century duchy and I replaced it with a wikilink to the 16th century county. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)