Talk:Frederica of Hanover
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
What about the tanks?
She is supposed to have personally led a Greek Army tank unit on a rescue mission to save children from the Bulgarians. I would like to find more about this and add it, but don't want the research vandalised. Who decides things like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to the 'first edition' of this page Frederika was not a Princess of Great Britain. Giano 21:24, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Title of Princess of Great Britain
Actually, Frederika of Hanover was actually a "Princess of Great Britain & Ireland" with the style of "Highness". Below is the footnote that is reference in the wiki article about her father, Ernst Augustus III, Duke of Brunswick:
2 By Royal Warrant of 17 June 1914, King George V granted the eldest son and any children thereafter born to Prince Ernst August of Hanover, then reigning Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, the title of Prince (or Princess) of Great Britain and Ireland with the style Highness. The provisions of this Royal Warrant ceased with George V's Letters Patent of 30 November 1917, and Hanoverian princes and princesses born after this date were no longer allowed the title Prince of Great Britain and Ireland with the style Highness.
So from her birth until the Letters Patent of November 30, 1917, Frederika of Hanover was also a Princess of Great Britain.18.104.22.168 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, but more specifically a Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Funny thing is I have never specifically seen "United Kingdom" use, but it must have been applied. To this day, members of the House of Hanover use the titles Prince/Princess of Hanover, Duke/Duchess of Brunswick and Lunenburg, Royal Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Charles 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This article should be checked for its neutrality as it is politically biased. Especially the part "Reign" should be rewritten altogether as it presents only proroyalist arguments. The opposition's accusations were really reasonable and well founded. The problem with that royal family unlike other in Europe is that it had often sided with the right or even with military dictatorhips, thus identifying itself with only a fraction of the political spectrum far from being the unifying symbolic figure the monarch is in Spain or Britain. In addition queen Federica was notorious for her numerous arbitrary and counterconstitutional interventions in Greek politics and clashes with democratically elected governments, thus jeopardizing national interests. The fact that monarchy has been abolished in Greece because of the people's disdain for the autocracy of Federica and her likes should seriously concern whoever is going to revise the article. --Conudrum 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article can be checked for neutrality but I challenge anyone to dispute what is written in the current revision. This article should have been challenged by others a year ago when it stated that (and I paraphrase) "2000 children are believed to be illegally [sold] to [wealthy} American families" by the Queen through the Paidopoleis. This is all that was written before about the Children's Camps or Paidopoleis. That was a biased statement used by the Communist Party of Greece then and ever since. In fact it is untrue when one does the research (see NY Times article August 13, 1996 by Raymond Bonner paragraph 17 where a "photoshop owner" is quoted as saying that up to 2000 children sailed to the US aboard the ship "Queen Frederika". The article states that children were adopted from orphanages and hospitals from the 1930s to the 1970s and not Paidopoleis, however it has been used by some to assign personal responsibilty to Queen Frederika). Why wasn't it challenged then I wonder? There is no credible evidence that children were ever sold to Americans through any Greek Royal institutions. In fact there have been hundreds of testimonies written disputing these claims (see "Eleni" by Nicholas Gage, "I Phoni tis Eirinis" by I. Bougas, "Oi Paidolpoleis" among many books written on this matter). The current article describes the official designation of the Paidopoleis Program (why they were set up) and also states the opposing view.Dydimos 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
In agreement with Conudrum that this article's 'Reign' section is very politically biased. It is true there are several conflicting viewpoints and opinions about the actions of Queen Fredirika through the Paidopoleis. Nonetheless, rather than challenging the accuracy of the content, the article should be checked for the style of neutrality in presentation of the facts regardless of the opinions. The bias of the 'Reign' section does indeed compromise the neutrality of this article, being completely in defense in every possible way of the queen's actions, indeed I have yet to see an article here on Wikipedia with more one-sided bias than in the pro-royal defense in this article. I also agree with Conudrum that the 'Reign" section needs a near-complete rewrite, and barring that that, a drastic change in the style of presentation. Armuk 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"During the civil war Queen Frederica set the Queen's Camps or Child-cities [...] where she would gather mostly orphans and children of poor families. These camps provided much needed shelter, food, and education to these children who were aged 3 years to adolescence.
The role of these Queen's Camps is disputed as a means of propaganda by the monarchy through the educational program. The Queen's Camps were a way to fend for the children - victims of the civil war. There were allegations, generally by opposition or communist sources, which held that children were illegally adopted by American families while they were in the Paidopoleis."
This page is clearly loaded in favour of Frederica. So anyone who criticises Frederica is a communist? Why is there no neutrality warning? I am new to this - is there anything I can do to have a neutrality warning inserted? Bougatsa42 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
From November 8 th 1918 until January 9 th 1938 her style in Germany was: Frederika Princess of Hannover, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg, without the HRH, because of the abolishing of the monarchy. --Kai27 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Kai27
She never made a public appearance in Spain
From 1967 on, she lived in Chennai (Madras), India.
She died while undergoing plastic surgery. Eyelid surgery. Her daughter Queen Sofia of Spain was skiing. ¿Cataracts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted POV "Character" section
No matter how brilliant and insightful, POV is NOT permitted. This is policy, not guidance. Placing a frivolous, opinionated POV section ahead of "Early life" borders on vandalism. As a previous post has said, this is not the place for propaganda. J M Rice (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added a neutrality warning. 1) Given the lack of a separate page for the Queen's camps, and the importance of the camps in terms of her reputation in Greece, what is needed is an objective appraisal, including conditions, educational standards, effect on civil war. There is quite a lot good objective material available, but mostly in Greek. 2) Her position is often overstated, and many claims are unsubstantiated.
- Please retract your last ad-hominem statement about contributors being members of the royal family per our pillar policy of no personal attacks and our principle of assumption of good faith. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
So you wouldn't agree that writing about a member of one's own family in relation to controversial matters would strain objectivity? (Personal attack removed). Bougatsa42 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Since you didn't retract your personal attacks I did it for you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to suggest, in a lighthearted fashion, that the article needs to be reworked by a neutral person. It is very unethical of you to remove what I have said, so that others with a better understanding of the concepts of 'ad hominum' and 'personal attack' can judge for themselves.Bougatsa42 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even in a "lighthearted" fashion it is still a personal attack. And your reply to me also included rude personal attacks. As far as others not being able to see your now removed personal attacks don't worry. They are still retrievable through the page history and people can still judge for themselves. I will not be involved in further mudslinging with you but you accusing me, the target of your personal attacks, of unethical actions, for removing your unethical attacks, is really ironic. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I am unsure what the nature of this disagreement is, that was brought to my attention due to this posting here. Can interested users please provide diffs below in the appropriate section, with a reasoning for the change, in the are provided below. This will assist me in being able to provide a third opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Viewpoint by (Bougatsa42)
Dr. K. is vandalising my contribution to the talk page, by falsely accusing me of a series of personal attacks, and thus creating an unfair impression of me. (Dr.K. now claims that I am a sock-puppet....) Bougatsa42 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Viewpoint by (name here)
- Third opinion by RightCowLeftCoast
I have been informed by the other party that they will not be participating in this discussion, see here. I kindly remind all parties to reread WP:CIVIL. Additionally, please see WP:RUC; there it states:
Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.
The other party provided me with two diffs (1, 2) that was seen as derogatory by the other party. Whether they are derogatory or not, is not my place to state, as if the other person did find them derogatory I cannot change how that person feels.
I recommend that both parts take some time away from this article, and disengage from this article. The article will still be here then, then after a week or two interested editors can begin working on content after a consensus is reached if any new content should be added, or existing content be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- If this is the case attempt to have good faith of the individual and warn them that they maybe in violation of WP:EW. If after several days they do not stop, or take there concerns to the article's talk page per WP:BRD, warn once more. Save those diffs. If the individual continues, inform the individual that you are taking the issue to the appropriate notification board regarding edit warring. Be warned as, if you are involved in that war, both the individual and yourself maybe temporarily blocked from editing.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem to think that all these activities, vandalism, SPI and edit warring over a 24 hour period should be seen as individual episodes rather than a package. I am not sure that this is the place to be discussing this, so thank you for your input, and let's leave it at that. Bougatsa42 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)