The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Banime (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because Frederick III is an important part of German and world history and is a good subject for debate today among historians. This article has gone through a good article review, an A class review, and a peer review and has been improved substantially over the past few months. I believe it has finally reached featured article status. Banime (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Still needs a lot of copyediting [2]; non-native English is still in evidence. Further examples:

Pt DONE "The timing of his death and the length of his reign have remained important topics among historians today, and his reign is also considered a possible turning point in German history.[5]" - the first part seems unlikely, and the secon needs a "potentially" I imagine, and a change of tense.

DONE"Furthermore, William had been in love with his cousin Elisa Radziwill, a minor Princess of the Polish nobility." - Surely rather a major one, as Polish princesses go, even if not grand enough for Fred?

DONE"He entered the University of Bonn and focused on English, French.." - just "and studied"?

DONE"As early as 1851, plans were made by European royalty to marry Frederick to Victoria, Princess Royal of Great Britain and Ireland, the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. At the christening of the future King Edward VII, Frederick's uncle, King Frederick William IV of Prussia, was godfather and had also dandled the Princess Royal on his knee. The Royal dynasty in Britain was predominantly German; there was little British blood in Queen Victoria and none in her husband.[13]" - chaotic logic, & if we are taking that route you have to go back about 300 years to find any ethnically British ancestors of Queen Victoria.

DONE"The couple had already took kindly to each other before the betrothal and loved each other throughout their marriage.[16][17] The rigorously educated Victoria shared her husband's liberal views. "

DONE"There Queen Victoria allowed him to stand in her place as an official deputy on numerous occasions.[26]" - despite the reference, I'm sure this is misleading. "There Queen Victoria allowed him to represent her at ceremonies and functions on numerous occasions.[26]" is more likely; I expect most were funerals, where a large variety of individuals often "represent" the Queen. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"After his military education, Frederick had his first combat experience during the Second Schleswig War. Frederick supervised Field Marshall Wrangel and his staff and tactfully managed the disputes between Wrangel and the other officers" - unless there was actual violence in staff conferences, "...had his first experience of active service during the Second Schleswig War.." or similar ("active campaigning" maybe), would be better. Given his limited achievements otherwise, the military successes could well be expanded on.

There are only three images, two of which should be placed on the left, not the right. Despite the usual plethora of nob-squad templates, there is room for more, and we must have ones that could be added- maybe of his military career. If the language could be cleaned up, & these other poiints dealt with, I would support. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I improved all of your concerns I believe. However, I believe "combat experience" is still the proper term for what he did in the Second Schleswig War. He was still in a high staff position. I think the term fits, but if others disagree then perhaps we can change it. So that one I did not change yet. Also, I'll work on expanding more about his military successes. Finally, I'm not very good with formatting, images, or templates, but I'll see what I can do. If anyone can help that would be appreciated. I know there is at least one more image of Frederick III that was removed earlier, as well as a photograph somewhere. Thanks so far for your comments. --Banime (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay about the images I looked at the MOS and I couldn't find anyway to make it work so far. The image fits perfectly where they are (Queen Victoria in the family section and the newspaper article about the war in the military section), and the MOS says no images should be left aligned below level 3 subsections. Therefore I'd have to move a picture slightly out of context to accomplish this. I could put another image left aligned under the Legacy section if you feel that would help. Let me know as I'm sort of confused on how to fix the images. Also I'll keep looking for any more templates, thanks. --Banime (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When all three image constraints can't be achieved, I prioritize to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, since it's important that all readers be able to easily access our articles (more so than aesthetics). I follow the following algorithm when there are competing constraints:

1. WP:ACCESS, no left-aligned under third-level headings

2. WP:MOS#Images, not looking off the text

3. Stagger right-left ... really, not the most important. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that means as of now the images should be correct. I'll see if I can figure out a way to get them not looking off the text but that would mess up the 1st of your "rules". Thanks. --Banime (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, an image overhaul has been completed with the help of some great editors (Johnbod, Jappalang, thanks. Also thanks SandyGeorgia for the copyedit). All the images should be great now (and they all are sourced/have information) and fit the MOS and rules above. The only thing I can see now is the format after the "Illness and Brief Reign" title, there is a large space because of an image. It could just be on my computer though. --Banime (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images are now hugely better, & my comments on specific prose/meaning passages above dealt with adequately, but I think an overall polish would still be good. Apart from the main infobox, there are 8 nobility/royalty templates! Surely some could be sacrificed, and should not more of the horizontal ones go below the references? Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some infoboxes and rearranged it a bit. Working on a final copyedit now and I've asked another editor for help. If anyone else would like to join in and help copyedit that would be much appreciated. --Banime (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I looked at all of the other FAs of nobility and I follow their format now. There is the Titles, Honours, and Arms section with an infobox of titles and with the arms in it to the right. Then below that there is an Ancestry section with a hidden infobox of ancestors (some had the table as I originally had it, but most of the FAs had the infobox that the article is using now, so that should be fine. Then below that is the Issue section with a table of children. So the format of the article should be to FA specifications now for royalty, and I'll keep working on the copy edit. --Banime (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, I did a copyedit and Jappalang did a great copyedit of the article. --Banime (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not enough. For example, the un-English construction "the Chancellor position", which I had removed in a small ce [3] has now been reintroduced. There is a lot of clumsy phrasing. You need someone like Tony or Malleus. It's a pity, because otherwise I think it's there, and the article is not long. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll keep looking for good copyeditors. --Banime (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been copyeditted again and expanded a bit with better context. --Banime (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Support - considerably improved - I did a smallish copyedit myself. The prose could still be polished further, but I think now meets FA standard. One small thing - was there a formal coronation, or was there not enough time? Worth slipping in either way. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I'm continuing to get more copyeditting help even now. Jappalang made some good suggestions and recommended other good copyeditors. As for the coronation, I've always believed he was too ill but I've never looked it up so I'll be glad to do that now and find out. If he had one I'll source it and put it in. --Banime (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything about a formal coronation, I think he was too sick. If I find anything in the future I'll add it. --Banime (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I suspect you're right as they only took place after I think at least 3 or 6 months of official mourning for the previous monarch. For example Queen Victoria's was 11 months after her accession. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is now fine, after further polishing by Karanacs, EyeSerene etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• What makes ftp://ftp.cac.psu.edu/pub/genealogy/public_html/royal/r01.html#I20 a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I did not check the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I thought it was something published by Penn State but I could be wrong. Luckily I found this just to provide another citation to an already cited sentence, if you think this isn't reliable then I can remove it and no harm would be done. --Banime (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove it. Should be easy to source that information to something more reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. The sentence is already cited with another source so there's no problems with the article with it removed. Thanks --Banime (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Friedrich III as Kronprinz - in GdK uniform by Heinrich von Angeli 1874.jpg - This image is lacking a source other than Wikipedia.
• Image:VictoriaPrincessRoyal.jpg - This image needs a description, a source, a date, and a photographer.

Hopefully this information will be relatively easy to acquire. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the description/date/photographer was added by Jappalang. I also added a source to each of those images, however I'm looking for better ones as we speak (one is just a thumbnail of it). --Banime (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff is all fixed (all images now have all required information and sources), thanks. --Banime (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing - since the image of Victoria was scanned from a personal collection, is there a book we can point to that verifies this image is of Victoria and that the photographer is Downey, etc.? I presume this photograph was reproduced somewhere. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image is no longer being used in the article. We got a new image of Victoria. --Banime (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support by karanacs. The article has been improved a great deal since I last read it - kudos to Banime, Jappalang, and Johnbod for their hard work. A few minor things:

• The first paragraph of the lead mentions twice that his father is William I. Perhaps this can be combined so that it only tells us this once?
• Does this need a citation "liberal sentiments would remain a powerful force in German politics."
• "William, who would become emperor after Frederick's death, shared none of his parent's liberal ideas, and relations between them were strained throughout their lives" - I suspect that relations weren't strained when William was a child...is this completely accurate?
• This reads awkwardly "An obstinate soldier and unlikely to change his ideas at the age of sixty-four"
• "Frederick's respectful treatment for his country's foes brought him respect from them and observing countries" - it may not be possible to rephrase this, but I'm not fond of respectful and respect in the same sentence
• Is this proper grammar? "William, however, lived long"

Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed your concerns. I changed the first paragraph so it only mentions him as his father once. I added a citation for liberal sentiments being strong (with an additional qualifier of "throughout Frederick's life" since I couldn't find one yet that just said forever or something similar). The childhood bad relations is accurate, I clarified and added another citation (Victoria sort of felt separate from William since he seemed like a "complete Prussian" which means conservative and military, etc and a rift developed between them even in childhood, citation says this). I changed the obstinate sentence a bit. I didn't change the respectful sentence, unless you feel "honorable" or "kind" or "fair" could be substituted but I don't think the meanings are quite the same. And I edited the grammar of that last one. Thanks again --Banime (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I commented during the A-class review, and the article has been greatly improved by the FAC (in regards to prose and content). I'm happy to support this article's promotion. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. This article is not yet in English: When his father acceded to the Prussian throne as King William I on January 2, 1861, Frederick became the Crown Prince. Kings in English succeed. A number of minor prose flaws of the same order need fixing.

• More seriously, the article treats the liberal program in nineteenth century Germany as a fixed quantity, known to the reader. It should be defined, and it should be acknowledged that Liberalismus had a different political program in 1848 and 1888. (Largely because of changes in the overall situation: Schleswig-Holstein and the existence of a Prussian constitution ceased to be issues; the nature of the Prussian constitution and the response to socialism became issues.)
• The Legacy section is an indiscriminate collection of information, much of it describing only the view of "Historians", some of it describing the views of historians from early in the last century. By its very nature, it's speculation: what would Frederick have done if he'd lived?, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. How many historians have written on Germany in 1888? Have any of them not speculated on this question?

These choices seem reasonable. In decreasing order of work:

1. A real survey of the literature, sourced to a secondary source, with the historians sorted by date and ideology.
2. A survey of current speculation on "what if Frederick had lived?"; again, organized by historical and political tendency - and sourced to a secondary source.
3. List the open questions: What would Frederick have done? Would he have attempted to create a liberal Germany? Would he have succeeded? Would this have averted WW I?
4. Remove the speculation altogether.

This article does none of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and concerns. I'll go through and ensure the prose is improved (EyeSerene just finished a new, great copyedit of the article and perhaps that already addressed that issue). I will also reply and discuss some of your thoughts on the other sections of the article in a while. --Banime (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your prose concerns should have been addressed, the article has been further improved (mostly thanks to EyeSerene and anyone else who helped). Liberalism was defined in the first section as wanting more representation in parliament and protection of basic freedoms, which is relatively unchanged throughout this entire period. For the specifics, there are good links within the article to liberalism in Germany, and Revolutions of 1848, etc that provide further detail that don't add to this article specifically, those basic facts are enough to show what Frederick desired and how he wished to rule. Also, when reading an article people will want to know why a certain person is covered, studied, or well known. While the article could just be "Frederick was an emperor of Germany, etc." I have personally not seen any source that simply described Frederick III without raising the question or speculating about what would have happened if he had lived longer, was not sick, or his father died sooner, etc. That is what people study about him so I believe that should go into the article. I put down as many of the major opinions and historians as possible into the Legacy sections so that all sides are represented so there is no bias of "yes he would have averted ww1" or "he couldn't have changed anything anyway" coverage. Yes many historians are from after his death or early in the century, but those historians are studied further today and there are plenty from more modern times as well in the sources. In fact, with ww2 dwarfing the scope of ww1, there has been (in my opinion) even further study of what Frederick could have done, and whether he could have prevented ww2 as well. When one man is studied as potentially having the capability to prevent two of the most disastrous wars on earth I think that should be covered, and it is in an unbiased way. The speculation is only in the article because that is how he is studied, its why he is most notable, and it is covered in numerous reliable sources. Of course, I am always open to further discussion on this issue if you'd like. Thanks for reading this long block of text and I hope that answers any concerns you had. --Banime (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm afraid I must oppose.

• Liberal politics have no connexion with the liberal arts, and the passage Augusta insisted that her son should also be educated in line with the new liberal ideas. Accordingly, Frederick was thoroughly tutored in both military and liberal subjects (especially accordingly) is nonsense.
• the concept of liberalism, which evolved in Germany during the 1840s, I hope that something else was meant, which would not deny the Liberalism of Spain in the 1810's. But this should be clarified anyway.
• Prussia was recovering from the Napoleonic Wars, having been conquered by Napoleon I of France Prussia was recovering from the Napoleonic wars in the 1830s? Come on now.
• I would be willing to rewrite the Legacy section to my own satisfaction; but I am not prepared to edit-war over it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take a look at your points and reply later. Also, if you'd like to rewrite the Legacy section how about we work on it together in a sandbox? I have one here if you'd like to put it there and we can work on it together and maybe that can improve the article (I'm hesitant to do it directly to the article right now, however I would never "edit war" over it). As for the liberalism in Spain, it was meant to show more of liberalism in Germany only and not discount liberalism evolving throughout the rest of europe. I'll make sure to clarify it if I can. I'll be back with more. --Banime (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've numbered the approaches I think reasonable on Legacy. Which ones would you prefer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I don't prefer any of them when I read them, but perhaps your treatment of one of those approaches would change my mind. I definitely don't approve of the last two, and probably the second one would fit best but like I said I'm skeptical so write how you'd approach it, then I can look at it and maybe it will change my mind. I'm just sort of confused by the suggestions is all. Feel free to just give your hand at which one you think would be best in a sandbox (like I said you can use mine). Also I'm still looking at improving your other points, you brought up some good ones (like with the liberal education). --Banime (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first two would both require a secondary survey of the literature on Frederick, preferably in English; do you know of one? (I find it inconceivable that one doesn't exist, even in German - but finding one would take time.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th would breach the "comprehensiveness" requirement, the first two would be very nice, but really the questions are probably more interesting here than the answers, which would suffer badly from compressed summary. The 3rd appears to be the way to go, and does not require much further work, it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its possible to raise the questions they raised without giving any sort of answer, otherwise people are going to be wondering why they raised these questions. That is why I think it's fine how it is. Otherwise it would read more like "Historians raised the question what would happen if he had lived longer?" And that would be it... as it is it goes into each side of the argument and covers all the theories (preventing the wars, or not for certain reasons).--Banime (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. We may not answer such questions, with a possible exception when the answers are consensus among historians - not the case here. (Incidentally, even I know of one line of argument you have missed; read Golo Mann for the argument that parliamentary democracy was arriving despite William II, and would have prevailed even if Germany had won the war - so it is not clear the present text can even claim comprehensiveness.) Doing so is adopting a point of view, which is contrary to policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent reply to Septentrionalis and Johnbod) Okay I've read over your arguments again and I think I finally see where you're coming from, but I still think you're a bit mistaken. All of the sources are already reliable secondary sources about Frederick III, I think if the article were "literary sources about Frederick III" then your method would make sense, but because this is about Frederick III we do not need further secondary sources about the secondary sources. All of them are about Frederick III and each one thinks one of those theories on the Legacy section. With other controversies among historical figures or situations, you'd show what the differing secondary sources were describing. The Legacy section as it is now is already showing each of the theories that are described, and the only reason I show the historians is for more accuracy and so that readers can look them up and see the individual sources if they have more questions on what that author thought about Frederick. Do you see how it is now, that is why I think you may be a bit mistaken with your Legacy concern. Your other concerns I'm still looking into though, I think you brought up those good points and I'm trying to figure out a way to fix them. Thanks. If you'd like to we can continue this conversation here or on Frederick III's talk page. --Banime (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very simplified explanation: one secondary source describes Frederick and says he would avert world war 1. Another secondary source describes him and says he would not have averted anything. I showed both of those possibilities and put the historians in there simply for accuracy and further information for readers. --Banime (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have fixed all of our your concerns (besides the Legacy section concern which I have spoken about above). I clarified that it was simply the liberalism in Germany, removed the perceived link between liberalism and the liberal arts, and removed the reference to the Napoleonic Wars which is too debateable (if I find good sources for it in the future I'll add it in). All of your concerns should be met now, except for the legacy, which I hope you will read my messages up above and agree with what I have said. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your reply above (the one beginning with "No we may not", and if possible please reply after here to maintain continuity) and I've been doing some research. First I'd like to state again that I've addressed all of your other concerns. Second, I've been looking into what you have said. You said that "we may not answer such questions", which I agree with; however I nor any other wikipedia editor has personally answered those questions in this article, just the secondary sources that are cited. Also, you mention Mann's position. I've researched and think I've found which theory you are mentioning (specifically by Eley and Blackbourn), and although I have not seen Mann's source yet I think they are similar (if Mann's is different please let me know, or please link me to an online version if you can). That train of thought is that Germany's liberals made some liberal progress during the years up until the end of the Weimar Republic. However, they do not mention Frederick III specifically. The theories with regards to Frederick III say he could have made Germany a liberal state quicker, ruled more liberally, and avoided both world wars. The theories against him say he would not have liberalized Germany and the wars would have happened anyway, etc. This third general theory you are talking about, that Germany was becoming liberal anyway, does not really fit with regards to Frederick III's legacy. It seems completely separate from him. If you remove him from the equation entirely then, the wars still would have happened according to the proponents of that theory. However, the two general theories (I say two because of the "general trains of thought" even though theres a number of variants) with regard to Frederick discuss the possibility of Frederick personally liberalizing Germany and the possibility of him avoiding world war. In short, I think that third theory you brought up has really nothing to do with Frederick. --Banime (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Banime misunderstands my objection. It is not that he has been intentionally pushing a POV (although he seems extremely impressed with the argument that Frederick could have averted the war); it is that this is an indiscriminate selection of information. This is presented as a survey of the positions on Frederick; neither I nor the reader have any reason to believe it complete though it purports to be, nor any reason to believe that all these views are still current. (For example, the view that Frederick could not have liberalized is cited to three sources, but the most recent is from 1951.) The whole thing does read like what Banime happened to have on hand; as sources for matters which are consensus, this would be fine; but this section is precisely what is not consensus. A secondary source, stating these are the views on Frederick would have done, and implying that it has covered the important ones, would answer these objections .

Let me do a draft edit, showing what would satisfy me; I think most of the references, which are the important things here, can be retained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that would help as I'm just a bit confused although you've clarified your position a bit. Thanks, let me know when I can look at it. --Banime (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redrafted the section. Note that all the references are still there in the footnotes; but Dorpalen's sixty-year old discussion of the state of play, especially since he is summing up for his own position, was getting undue weight. The corresponding paragraph in the lead should also be trimmed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your current draft to User:Banime/Sandbox where everyone can see it, or use your link above. The reason for the move is it is still a draft, and as this is still in FAC and a number of supports have supported the other version I think that should stand until we're agreed. I see what you're trying to do with the section, but I think it is misguided slightly. I've been reading through WP:RS and other guidelines and policies to get a better idea. Please see This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. I understand you said I'm not pushing a POV and thats not what this quote is in regards to, its for the opinions of these reliable authors, who according to your version should not be represented. I know you also said its an indescriminate collection of information, however it also says Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources which was done and all significant views were covered. Sometimes the date of different resources CAN be used to call into question their accuracy, however this is most applicable perhaps to scientific type articles and less applicable to history. They all share the same facts behind their reviews of Frederick III, the only difference is their interpretations. However, because they are the opinions of reliable authors they should be stated. If you'd like and have an online source I can look more at Golo Mann however I believe, as I stated before, that his specific theory doesn't really have anything to do with Frederick III per se. And you mentioned above that I am impressed with the argument that he could have averted the war. If you can tell any sort of my pov from how I wrote this article then that would be a problem, however I don't think you can as it is very NPOV and covers all sides. However, when a man is covered by numerous reliable sources in that he could have stopped some of the most destructive wars in history, then yes I feel it needs mentioning and moreso than a quick glance or raising the question within the article "what if he had liberalized germany sooner?" or something to that affect. I hope you can see my point better now. Your draft is still on my sandbox, as stated above. --Banime (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you revise along these lines. We should not lay this sort of weight on three sources out of many; if it's important to you to portrary Frederick as a potential world-saver, nire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for a clarification of what this reply means? I'm not sure what you're trying to say and I don't think it fits exactly to my reply. However it could just be my mistake but I really don't understand what you are saying. --Banime (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having just reviewed it in detail, I must oppose promotion of the present text; I should like to support, and if a compromise is made I will consider it. Banime has a message to peddle; this may have energised the production of the article in its present state, but the result is not our best work. This is a variant of the old editing advice: if there is a passage you particularly like, edit it out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now that you've been a bit more clear and still think I have some sort of message to show with this article, despite it being NPOV as possible and showing all the sides of the argument, I'll have to restate my claims again. Yes, I am also open for a compromise, and your work is still up at my sandbox if you'd like to work more on it. I'll start with a better question: can you please show me one secondary source which discusses Frederick III WITHOUT bringing up his potential affect on the liberalization on Germany and its effect on Germany's future? I'm seriously searching hard to see if I can find one, but EVERY source that I've looked at has examined Frederick within the framewark of whether he WOULD or WOULD NOT have liberalized the Empire and potentially avoided conflicts. Therefore, it has nothing to do with my message at all but the message of all of these reliable sources, which is why I quoted the guidelines above to you. Now that you've tagged the article and posted on the talk page, I'd have to say that it is not my "Banime's enthusiasm about the possibility that Frederick, if he had lived, could have averted the First (and so presumably the Second) World War" (which you said on the talk page), but rather my enthusiasm that multiple secondary sources have said that. I quoted the policies to you above, these are all in seconary sources, you really don't need to start accusations for anything. In response to your advice, I like the entire article, but I am not unwilling for it to change. In fact I've improved this article with every editor here so far, and I improved it based on all of your claims as well except for this one regarding his legacy because you believe it is my opinion, which it is not. --Banime (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if there was a source on Germany in 1888 which did not speculate, at least for a sentence, on what would have happened. My objections are, I repeat, two:

• A full paragraph in the lead and three in the body are too much to spend on speculation.
• This is probably a reasonable picture of the balance of speculation sixty years ago when Dorpalen was writing. Now it is an indiscriminate selection of dated information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone over your position many times and reread your draft (currently at User:Banime/Sandbox) many times, and have finally come to a conclusion after our many exchanges both on this talk page and my talk page. The draft itself seems to me to be almost exactly like the version currently on the FAC, except with less information. You have accused me of pushing a POV despite everything being sourced by reliable sources. Conversely, and you may not understand that this is exactly what you're doing, but I believe that your removal of large amounts of information covered by secondary, reliable sources is more akin to pushing a POV. Arbitrarily saying sources cannot be used because they are a certain number of years old does not work in this case. This is not science, where facts may change. What if someone felt only sources from this year were worth using and citing? Then this article wouldn't exist. That isn't anyone's place to say. The facts did not change regardless of when they wrote. This article is also not about the consensus of historians, of which there is none in this case anyway, but about showing every side of the story that is significantly covered in reliable sources, which I feel the article has done. You have admitted yourself that every source has mentioned this speculation on Frederick, so how can two paragraphs within the body, discussing this speculation and showing the sides of the argument that are well sourced, be "too much"? Therefore, due to the arbitrary assignment that all sources must be from a certain date, and the fact that PMAnderson admits that every source mentions the speculation but he personally feels it should have lesser representation within the article and not be discussed fully, I have to say that this oppose is inactionable. Also if a neutral party would like to take a look at PMAnderson's current tagging of the article, which I feel is a bit hasty, out of consensus, and misinformed, that would be appreciated. --Banime (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick addendum so you don't misinterpret my tone: I thank you for your review and contributions to this article, however I think you're very mistaken on this point, and feel that no one can effectively take action on it. Thanks --Banime (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of reversion, Banime has restored a slip in tone: of The Princess Victoria, Princess Royal is too formal for an encyclopedia. At a minimum, The should be lc; preferably the repetition of Princess should be avoided. We are an encyclopedia, not the Court Circular. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this, however because the article is actually Princess Victoria, Princess Royal and her name in bold is The Princess Victoria, Princess Royal I feel it should be kept as is. --Banime (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article is written as though it were an extract from a Court Circular. This is less than optimal, but it is not up for FA. As often, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (here for encyclopedic prose), and error should not propagate from one article to another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can call her simply Princess Victoria, if no one objects. I don't think the meaning would be lost and the link would go to the right place. Agree? --Banime (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine; you could have done it eight hours ago. (The title of our article on the Princess, btw, is an artifact of the effort to make a systematic treatment of noble titles satisfying our demands for uniqueness; none of them is guaranteed to be English usage, which our texts should follow.)

Fixed, thanks.--Banime (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent, moved reply to bottom of PManderson's oppose)We're working on our talk pages to see if he can suggest some other way for the article to be improved since I don't feel the age of source should be taken into account. I'll be thinking and seeing if theres any kind of draft I can come up with (probably on my sandbox). Any suggestions by other editors are welcome, although I'm still holding onto a few of my reservations I'm trying to work on it to see what we can come up with. --Banime (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took some time to separate myself from the article for a bit then come back and read both versions and your argument again. When looking at the draft (currently here), to me it just seems like it doesn't contain enough detail. I know your point is that you feel there is too much given to the speculation, but I'd have to repeat that as long as most sources bring up this speculation often, and seeing as how the speculation is about a very large effect on history, I feel that the weight given to it currently is proper. I looked again to see if I could detect any POV, but I feel both sides are well representend and sourced within the article. If I attempted to cut down I feel it would just make the speculation less detailed, which I feel isn't really an option in this case since readers will be interested on both sides of this speculation and "potential turning point", and as long as it covers both sides neutrally and from reliable sources it should be included. Therefore, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point of your oppose, at least for the time being. I thank you for all of your other suggestions so far to help the article, and sorry that we haven't met eye to eye yet on this one issue. If any other editors want to ensure proper weight is given and no POV exists, please do so. Thanks again. --Banime (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it meets the criteria, though I agree that there are some minor prose issues. For example, the second sentence of the lead is rather long, and "liberal" is repeated quite a lot throughout the article. But these are, of course, minor quibbles. DrKiernan (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your minor prose concerns should have been addressed, hopefully it is improved. --Banime (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it meets the FA criteria after all of the copyediting that's been carried out during this nomination. I do have one minor comment though, which is that the article has left me wondering what happened to the Empress following Frederick's death. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in improving the article while you reviewed it. Also, I understand your question and I'll look into adding a small blurb about it, but since the article is about Frederick I do not want to get it too off topic. Nothing particularly "happened" with her as she was no longer in any sort of position of power after William II took the throne. I could perhaps add a small summary or mention that she did not affect the direction of the empire, but again I'm not sure how off topic that is. I'll look into it more and if anyone else has suggestions please let me know. --Banime (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting adding anything other than a sentence or two, just to round off the story. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence about what she did after his death to sort of sum up the story as you said. At the same time I won't go into a lot of detail on her actions, as a reader can click her link and find out more if they desire. Read it if you'd like and see if it improves the article, or feel free to copy edit it. --Banime (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is unbalanced and lacking information. I was particulary stricken by the fact that a minor love affair with Polish noble is noted while the possible internal policies towards milions of people from Polish minority in Prussia is completely absent from the article. This should read less like tabloid information and more like encyclopedia work. More information on internal and foreign policy matters that would be persued, including repression of minorities under his regime.--Molobo (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the main thing emerging from the article is that he didn't have a "regime". Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his views on foreign affairs, internal matters, dealing with the minorities would be more interesting and valid then love affair information.--Molobo (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anything about his bad internal polices or planned policies towards the Polish. Do you have any sources for that? I'm pretty confused about your oppose as I've never heard anything like that before. I guess that could be possible or maybe even covered by a source at some time, but it might be WP:FRINGE or something similar? If you show me some sources on that I'll look into it, but as I've said I've never heard anything about that. Are you sure you have the right Frederick III? Many German rulers were named Frederick, and Frederick III at that. --Banime (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching, I think you may be referring to Elector Frederick III, from a few hundred years before? When he wished to ally with Russia and supported their policies against Poland because of that? That is a different person, but I can see the source of confusion. Also, the "polish affair" you were talking about wasn't with Frederick III but rather with William I (its in the article but perhaps you missed that). --Banime (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as I am not a native speaker I didn't express myself clearly. In short-I would prefer the article would deal what were his intended foregin and internal policies and views on politics. --Molobo (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please read my replies directly above. In regards to the article, I believe it already does deal with his intended foreign and internal policies and views on politics, quite thoroughly. He was liberal, supported the constitution, wanted less power for the chancellor, and was against more conservative internal and foreign policies (especially those put forth by bismarck). If you have any sources for the "anti polish" things you said then I'll gladly look at them, but I've been searching for a bit now and I haven't found anything stating anything close to that yet. I have found where it talks about Elector Frederick III, a man from hundreds of years earlier, and how he may have wanted to support anti-polish russian policies for an alliance with russia or something similar, so I think you really might be mixing up this person. However if you have sources stating the contrary I'd gladly look at them. --Banime (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found something talking about some expulsions of poles from prussia during his father's reign, but that was by Bismarck and William I. I still haven't found anything specifically saying Frederick III supported these or even mentioning him in the same sentence yet. I understand you wish for the expulsion of the poles to be mentioned but I don't think it fits in this article, if anything it would fit in with William I or Bismarck. I'll keep looking as I've only found one (non reliable) source so far. --Banime (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banime-I just wanted the article to be more focused on scholary things like foreign or internal policy, but I won't press the issue.--Molobo (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, it would be better if you could cite specific issues. Currently, you are skirting around Banime's responses and the point you're trying to make is elusive (and not very clear). You cite the example that he had a love affair as an example of the article leaving what you believe the central subject (his politics), but the rest of the article does deal with his politics in one way or another. Can you cite specific examples of what you'd like to be included? JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, that is not exactly what you said ("including repression of minorities under his regime"). Please point out reliable sources that stated this happened under the subject's reign. Wikipedia articles cannot cover things that were never done by the subject. If there are reliable sources that cover this item, and the idea is not an insignificant one, then your oppose would be valid. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I've added a bit of citations and a sparse few more things into the article with regards to politics, but not too much. I've been researching a lot on Frederick lately to try to see if anything you said could be found, but I haven't found anything about his relations with Poles yet. If you have a source I'll gladly look into it. --Banime (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of his official actions would be a useful article, if the sources permit. Under the circumstances, there can't be too many of them.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting another article, or for all of his official actions to be represented in this one? I believe most of them are already with the exception of a wedding he attended, but I can doublecheck the sources and be sure if that's what you meant. --Banime (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another article. It would be grossly disproportionate here if it actually listed everything he did as Kaiser; it is quite possible, however, that no anti-Polish measure is among them - we are only discussing three months. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Reference #6 is broken.--ragesoss (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks. --Banime (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the image overlapping into the next section is reduced. Those things make me cry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed it, with a slight copyedit as well. --Banime (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the page looks great. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inflammatory forum-shopping comment [4] removed. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This questions Banime's use of sources, connecting him with some hoax articles. A useful caution, but the sources I have checked (a handful) here appear to be real; I think Banime's handling of them is somewhat tendentious, but that is part of my oppose. The present text also cites some authors as though Wikipedians had consulted them, when the footnotes make clear that what is being cited is Dorpalen's assertions about those authors; carelessness, but not prevarication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're talking about, the sentence Other historians, including Wilhelm Mommsen and Arthur Rosenberg, oppose the idea that Frederick could have, or would have, liberalized Germany.[7] which is footnoted to page 2 of Dorpalen. Arthur Rosenberg was used already, as you can see he is sourced later in the article. Dorpalen page 2 describes both Mommsen and Rosenberg that way, hence the citation. I believe it is sourced correctly, since I sourced where I got it from (rather than using a Mommsen source that I did not consult) and the sentence is simply describing Mommsen and his contradiction of Frederick's liberalism. If anyone thinks this is contentious please let me know. --Banime (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is well written and comprehensive. Well done. I hope it gets promoted. NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: There are minor quibbles, but this is definitely an FA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments. I found a few spelling mistakes and inconsistent use of US and UK English; the article needs to be consistent. Please be take care not to over-link. The article is certainly FA standard on the whole, but it still needs a few tweaks here and there. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.