Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany/archive1

Ex-King of Britain's visit to Nazi Germany

Ex-King of Britain's visit to Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Ex-King of Britain's visit to Nazi Germany/archive1

Nominator(s): ——Serial ^# 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A bloody fool rather than an all-out Nazi, seems to be the consensus. Edward VIII, not me, that is :) Something rather different from me, this will hopefully complement our already-featured article on the King, which, of course, could not give due weight to this curious—verging on the bizarre*—episode of his career.

I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. Prost! ——Serial ^# 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

*Literally gatecrashing, for example, courtesy of their driver being plastered. ——Serial ^# 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment on name change

Moved to Talk:Windsors' visit to Nazi Germany

• Oppose until a stable NPOV title is found --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The term "Nazi Germany" should be avoided if possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? It is the title of our article about that state, Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to bother Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany either. ——Serial ^# 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason the main article is so named (WP:COMMONNAME), it is a slang term avoided by historians. Actually, the term "Ex-King of Britain" bothers me more; it is a poor description of the King-Emperor. I would prefer "Duke of Windsor", which is accurate, unique and concise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a talk page discussion on the preferred name, Hawkeye7, where your input would be appreciated by all. ——Serial ^# 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

By my count, there are 15 books in the Nazi Germany#Bibliography section referring to the state as "Nazi Germany" in the title, so I would not say that the term is avoided by historians. But in any case, that discussion belongs to Talk:Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as current title discussion (including an appeal at WP:AN) indicates this does not have title stability yet. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If the FAC coords are wondering why Hasteur—who has had an account since 2007, and yet has never reviewed a FAC before (or, for that matter, commented at WT:FAC)—has suddenly decided to pop up and oppose now, I draw your attention to the fact that the last interaction between us resulted in some embarassment for Hasteur. I had accepted a nomination at AfC, which he disapproved of (" I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space") and promptly nominated it for deletion. The community did not agree. It was closed (speedily) by an administrator, who stated that sanctions for disruption will be imposed if you make more nominations that are so grossly erroneous.

TL;DR: the word retaliatory springs to mind. ——Serial ^# 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for Assuming bad Faith SN54129... I am a editor in good standing and not under any sanctions. I read the Administrators Noticeboard. Are you trying to imply that editors who don't have experience in a specific area of wikipedia are prohibited from participaiting in direct contravention of what you claimed/said/wrote in the other case. TLDR: Nice ABF you have there. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh-uh. TL;DR: you would not have cared otherwise. Your oppose does not help the project (or indeed you "good standing"), whereas closing and implementing the talk page discussion would have. That you chose the one coures and not the other speaks volumes. ——Serial ^# 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, Hasteur, it is as you say irrelevant how you got here, and my remarks were perhaps a little over the top and certainly over-personalized. Thanks for looking in, it's the more the merrier here usually. And usually much quieter... ——Serial ^# 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I accept your apology. I was simply expressing my view in light of WP:FACR (paraphrased) A Featured article is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The "abnormal" Request for closure piqued my interest. I didn't consider who was involved, simply looking at the topic and reading the "thesis" of the related Request raised enough concern for me that I did not consider the proposed featured article stable yet. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Hasteur. Any thoughts on this? The appeal to AN had the (eventual) result of moving the page back to its non-contentious original title, which, as it has now been arrived at by community consensus (rather than just my choice) would make impossible for any further move even should anyone want it. All the best, ——Serial ^# 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The article title appears to be stable. I think (possibly as part of the promotion to FA) that in light of the previous moves in addition to the charged nature of the page, we might want a preventative Move-Protect. Just spitballing, ideas to improve the article/wikipedia. My previous oppose is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• On "British government", you pipe to National Government (1935–1937) The Windsor marriage and thus the visit was after Baldwin left office, which at least our article treats as the termination of the National Government.

Changed link to [[National Government (1937–1939).

• "Windsor was a known admirer of all things German.[16]" Perhaps something could be said here about the heavy German influence in the royal family.

Excellent idea: added a footnote explaining the German roots of the family and the reasons for the new name.

• "One of Windsor's own supporters, Chips Channon—Conservative MP for Southend West—commented in 1936 that the Duke "is going the dictator way, and is pro-German".[24][25]" This seems a bit duplicative of what was said earlier in the paragraph. I'd also omit the "own". Be careful of tone: there is no need to pound the point home that going to Nazi Germany on a visit such as this was a bad idea, it is today self-evident.

I swung this around and broke it up a bit, some of it going into the historiography section, for example.

• Regarding studying industrial affairs, it might be mentioned that Windsor had at least the reputation of someone concerned with the problems of the working classes, "Something must be done".

Yes, fair point, again: classic quote the something must be done; apparently Balders tore him off a strip over it!

• "men such as Bedaux" You haven't yet established who he is.

The source names Bedaux, but we don't need to; changed to "associates", which conveys the general lacklustre nature of his advice.

• "Windsor was keen to restore his public image and standing," Isn't this similar to what you say at the end of the previous section, "This way, argues Adrian Philips, Windsor intended to rebuild himself a public position.[36]"

Tweaked it slightly, but I want to keep the sense that in the past, this is what he wanted to do, and was subsequently given the opportunity to do so.

• Nazi Germany is not linked on first mention.

Done.

• Le Meurice Probably does not need italics. Also, later, "Academy for Youth Leadership".

Done.

• "The Windsors' hotel suite in the Le Meurice became the focus for its organising, and many different contacts and visitors visited. " What is "it" in "its organising"? The tour?

Indeed, I've reworded.

• " In a telegram to the Foreign Office, the Duke stated[15]nIn accordance with the Duke of Windsor's message to the world press last June that he would release any information of interest regarding his plans or movements, His Royal Highness makes it known that he and the Duchess of Windsor are visiting Germany and the United States in the near future for the purpose of studying housing and working conditions in these two countries.[15]

— Edward, Duke of Windsor" You're saying who wrote it twice.

Of course, removed.

• There should be spaces either side of ellipses.

I have literally never read that before1 Embarrassing, but Done.

• "The first indication of this was on their arrival at Berlin's Friedrichstraße station on 11 October. The historian Susanna de Vries has described how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal" on their arrival;[51]" "on their arrival"/"on their arrival"

Lost the last arrival.

• "German media set great store by the Windsors' visit, and the Duke responded with full Nazi salutes.[33] " He responded to stories (?) with Nazi salutes?

Yes, that's daft isn't it; you're right about over-egging the salutes, so I got rid of this mention and found some interesting thing wrt German perception of the duke.

• "The journalist Andrew Morton suggest that the couple" Not sure if you were going for "suggests" or "suggested".

Suggests, as it goes.

• "The Windsors dined with his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the 19th,[49][note 14] which was attended by over 100 guests including." "his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" may be too royal-speak. We are also waiting to hear who the guests included.

Inserted a duke of. I think there was more in between the two points which has got lost, but the source doesn't actually list any anyway.

• "Prince Phillip von Hessen[23]" The spelling of Phillip seems at variance with our article on him.

I just went by the source.

• "Their telephones were bugged by Prince Christoph of Hesse, on the orders of Reichsstatthalter Hermann Göring, for the duration of their visit;[50]" I'm not sure what "for the duration of their visit" adds.

True, removed.

• the Nazi leadership was kept fully informed on events at every stage of the tour.[29]" I expect this is British English so should "was" be "were"?

Yeeeas...done.

• "This made particularly easy, argues the modern historian John Vincent, as the German government were funding the visit.[50]" missing word in early part of sentence, you are inconsistent in capping "German Government".

Standardised.

• "During the men's' discussion," I'd lose one of the apostrophes.

Done.

• "The couple were repeatedly greeted with the Nazi salute;[29] the Duke reciprocated in kind, a number of times and which made him appear sympathetic to their views.[32] " Some awkwardness in sentence. I also note you've mentioned him making Nazi salutes before. If you are going to place such emphasis on this, you might want to footnote that this was hardly unheard of, for example the English football team in Berlin in 1938, nor greatly controversial at that moment.

Excellent point. I've reduced the number of times I mention the salutes to just this one, per weight, and added a footnote pointing out how common it was, incl. the football reference. Cheers.

• "Lord Halifax" I would at least mention he was a cabinet minister.

And linked.

• "captured by the allies" Should allies be capped/linked/both?

Both.

• "Another interpreter present, Paul Schmidt, later described his memory of Hitler's and the Duke's meeting:[31]" You at least imply there was no interpreter present for the meeting between Hitler and Windsor. This bit comes as a surprise. And I don't see any need to have Schmidt sign the quote that follows.

Removed the sig; not sure how to get around the presence of the interpreter. Indeed, it struck me when I ws writing i that it seemed odd for them to need an interpreter; but Windsor would have spoken classical German I suppose, and Hitler probably the argot of Vienna (?) so maybe. On the other hand, he could have been there more as a witness or minute taker; but unfortunately, the source uses "interpreter".

• "Gauleitung" this may confuse the reader, with no link.

Linked.

• "Baldwin's government attempted to manage the public relations issues surrounding the visit, " Atop the greasy pole, for all the good it did him, was Chamberlain, by the time of the visit for some five months, I reckon.

Yep. Already changed that final photo but forgot about this mention!

• Reactions, I would assume, should cover the reaction in the British press, surely. Did Chamberlain, or the FM (Eden) have anything to say?

I'm leaving that for now—will require researching.

That's it for now. Hopefully these can be cleared up. Interesting topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Always good to see you Wehwalt, and thanks for these suggestions, particularly maintaining NPOV etc, they've led to some interesting additions. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Holding off on a re-read until the opposers are happy or until you ping me again, since I imagine there will be changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Support I've made a number of minor changes. I would still suggest the following:

• Consider moving the mention of Chamberlain up in the text, perhaps to where you mention Number Ten. He still seems an afterthought and the reader would be excused if they thought Baldwin was still PM.
• You might mention that former Labour Party leader George Lansbury was among those who visited Hitler.
• An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those extra thoughts, Wehwalt, they're useful. Lansbury especially, as it shows it wasn't just the nobs that went over  :) and Chamberlain, well I forgot to point out that he became PM in May that year, so frankly Baldwin had nothing to do with it. Which makes it close on to being clarification of teh century! All the best, ——Serial ^# 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Very interesting topic!

• Be careful of consistency: First World War / Second World War vs. World War One vs. World War I. Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Although royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that": Could I suggest "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that"? Otherwise I'm not sure that it's a complete sentence. Using "Although" in this way is okay in spoken English, but I'd argue it's not totally correct in written English. Moisejp (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Moisejp thanks for this points, which I've addressed. You're definitely correct in the first and probably in the second :) if you can think of anything else that would improve the article, let me know! Cheers, ——Serial ^# 08:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Serial. I'll try continue this review soon. I was in part holding off until HJMitchell's issue was resolved, and I see now it has been. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moisejp, apprecaite your coming back. I've addressed your suggestions—hopefully—often by the simple means of stealing your suggestions  :) cheers, ——Serial ^# 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Lead: "disrupt the first year of George's reign": First mention of George, I think. Does he need more of an introduction? Moisejp (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Good idea: I've added a sentence introducing him as King at the beginnig, which allows him to be called George now.

• Royal and governmmental view: "The royal biographer Sarah Bradford suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring." Is "not only" correct here, or perhaps it's a leftover from a previous "not only...but also" construction? By itself it feels incomplete. Moisejp (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, and also caught by Harry Mitchell below.

• "The Duke had a ("genuine", says Middlemas) sympathy[46] for the cause of improving working conditions." I'm torn but feel overall the extra value of "genuine" here may not be great enough to offset the extra resulting wordiness. How would the following be: "The Duke was sympathetic to the cause of improving working conditions: a few months earlier, for example, he had declared—in what the historian Michael Bloch calls a "celebrated remark"—that "something must be done" about unemployment." Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit random, so have removed and tweaked per your suggestion.

• 11–23 October 1937: "Ley and a welcoming delegation—which, although a private visit of a guest of the GLF, included von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer—met them on the platform." This sentence also feels slightly wordy to me, and I wonder whether the inclusion of "although a private visit of a guest of the GLF" adds enough to warrant the extra twists and turns. If it could be removed, then the sentence could be greatly simplified to something like "Ley and a welcoming delegation including von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer, met them on the platform." Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Adopted your suggestion, cheers.

• "Also waiting was Ogilvie-Forbes, who presented them with a letter informing them of the inability of the Embassy to provide them with services." / "This contrasted with their treatment by the UK resident in Berlin, Ogilvie-Forbes, notes Bloch. Forbes had been instructed not to receive the royal couple, give them rooms or in any other way assist them." These details feel possibly repetitive since they are in such close proximity with each other. If there's a way to merge them together, that could be nice, but if there's not, maybe it's okay.

No, you're right: I've merged the second mention into the first and moved the footnote up.

Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Horcher's, the finest gourmet restaurant in the city". Could be subjective? Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was :) but yeah, completely unencyclopedic, so removed.

Any thoughts Moisejp? There's no rush of course, but just a reminder that we're still going strong here  :) ——Serial ^# 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to jump back in soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Oppose. Tone is far too flowery for a neutral encyclopaedia article. I've only thoroughly read the lead but that read like an editorial piece. For example, we have statements like it may be that he saw himself in the role of peacemaker, The government suspected, correctly,, the highlight of their tour, and lack of good advice he received rather than outright Nazi leanings in Wikipedia's voice. The last needs better attribution than "modern historians". As for the rest, it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader how he may have seen himself, that the government was correct, or that the meeting with Hitler was the highlight; we just summarise the facts from the reliable sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Where the sources draw conclusions about things like motives, those should be included with in-text attribution. I'm not seeing so many problems further down the article, but I am seeing a lot of linking of commonly understood terms and Easter-egg links, and a lot of places where the prose could be tightened to better meet 1a. It's a fascinating bit of history and I'm glad to see it getting some attention but I think there's work to do yet before it's of FA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for this; a question though. Would you mind if I gave your review one-tenth of the attention I have given other reviewers, or would you consider that very rude of me indeed? ——Serial ^# 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it rude, but I would be more inclined to come back and offer a full review if I saw that you were noting and addressing my preliminary concerns. I tend to be thorough in reviewing a relatively small number of FACs rather than spending a little time across a lot of articles, so there would be little point in investing several hours in reading and reviewing if the nominator and I were not going to see eye to eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that dropping a bald oppose like that is the subtlest or surest way of ensuring we see eye-to-eye.

Having said that, your points undoubtedly have merit. So: I have gone through and removed (four?) overlinks (honeymoon, unemployment for ex.). There may well still be possible overlinking, and I'll discuss that happily, but I am averse to removing apparently obvious links that may not be so obvious outside of the Anglosphere.

Your concerns wrt to the contents of the lead are more tricky, not the least because this is all fully-sourced material (often direct quotation) from the article body. So d you think it needs citing? That would probably need a consensus, per CITELEAD.

I'm currently giving it another prose run, mostly looking at run-on sentences, etc.

All the best, ——Serial ^# 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Meh. Forgot to ping. ——Serial ^# 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think @HJ Mitchell:'s oppose was valid at the time, but since then the lead has been greatly improved. Thanks Harry for highlighting. I just gave a once over; my changes were mostly small stuff. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is much better now and I've struck my oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To follow up, one remaining thing; "had tea with Hitler" seems like trite - it was a formal and highly politicised occasion. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Windsors' political views A little work is needed here for clarity. You refer to him as "Windsor" and "the Duke" but the section starts with events before the abdication and the new title.

Difficult...the "Background" section establishes his changes of name/title. Having said that, a tweak in the order and calling him PoW might do it?

• in her autobiography she refuted the suggestion is "refute" definitely the verb you want there?

"Denied" is better. Ironically, with what's to come, it's seems out of lace here and seems better forwarded to a footnote.

• suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring. Looks like you've left something dangling from a previous edit?

Indeed, as also caught by Moisejp  :)

• Note 10 contains a massive run-on sentence that's very difficult to parse.

Split in two and generally shortened.

• You use the verb "argue" a lot (20 times in 4,500 words), often with the same sentence structure ("historian John Smith argues")

Reduced down to two usages. What's your opinion on false titles? This accounts for my (monotonous) sentence structuring when it comes to quotes, opinions etc.

• Ley replied "'it is where they store the cold meat.' In a horrible sense that was true", I think you're missing an opening or closing quote mark between the quotes, and I'm not sure the second half adds any value.

It's one quote (double quote marks) with a quote inside (single quotes)?

• What does note 25 have to do with the visit? Ditto 26, 28, 33, 34 (the first sentence of which could maybe go in the body), 35, and 37.
• Austria was shown as annexed to Germany Is this really relevant?

Personally, I'd say pretty emphatically, yes. Mainly because it's one of the few times we actually have an indication the sort of encounters they were having: he met all these important people—von R., Speer, Goebels, Hitler etc., but we rarely get a hint of what they discussed. But with Goering, funny story from Simpson.

For what it's worth, I could probably have mined other similar anecdotes from their autobiographies, but wanted to avoid using them as much as possible. Whereas this anecdote, although from the Duchess, comes straight from a RS.

• Note 27: I would mention in the body that the salute was not unusual and scrap the stuff about football as off-topic.
• Suggest unlinking "risqué jokes", "sight-seeing", "interpreter" (which is not linked on first mention), "summit", "forcibly taken over", and looking for other similar links further up.

Done.

• Liebensraum is linked twice.

Thanks, thought I'd caught em.

• Note 29 should be shortened and incorporated into the body.
• Note 30: The duke's 1966 comments could go in the aftermath section; the rest is off-topic for the visit.
• Note 31 should be incorporated into the body. The duke's version of what was discussed is directly relevant.

All things being equal, I totally agreed with this, and have done so!

• Historiography: This gets a bit choppy with too many sentences along the lines of "historian Smith [verb] suggests..."

Tricky...it's a load of people giving their opinions, which has to be directy attributed inline. Also, re. sentence structure, see my comment above wrt false titles...

• Do we need three relatively short block quotes in Historiography?

Not if you say so. I was going by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE which suggests quotes of 40 words or more might be blocked off, but admittedly they were all pretty close to the edge (and indeed, in one case was a bout two short!)

• Churchill, for example, wrote to the Duke, then in Paris, Is the duke's location relevant?

No, gone.

• Does the NYT quote in "later events" really need a block quote?

See above for reasoning, but I've trimmed it so it's now moot and inline.

• 37 explanatory footnotes in 4500 words is far too many, and a lot of these are very close together (some a sentence or two apart; in one instance you have two literally next to each other). Many could be culled (starting with the ones I raised above); those that are directly relevant to the visit should be incorporated into the body.

I'll be addressing this, obviously.

• "However" used to be frowned upon at FAC and should be used with caution. You have eight instances in this article, most of which I suspect could be culled.

True; reduced to two, if I can count right.

• The writing can be a little verbose and there are places where it could be tightened. A thorough copy edit for concision could probably cull a couple of hundred words without any loss of meaning. Some quotes could probably be culled; obviously historians' opinions are important, but some could be rephrased into your own words to help with the flow (eg, "genial mood" probably doesn't need in-text attribution). I'd suggest varying your introduction to quotes as well; they almost all follow the format of This was not, comments Morton, and but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach,.

I've reduced the number of quotes—particularly the short ones which can be rephrased—substantially. See above, again, re. false titles for the reasoning for the quotes' lead ins. Happy to be advised on other methods though obviously.

Very well-researched and put together, but more work is needed on the prose, I feel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough review, HJ Mitchell, appreciated. I've addressed most of your points, nearly always incorporating them, although, as I say, those that relate to footnotes require careful consideration. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick reply. I don't have a strong opinion on false titles. I tend to use them where the concision doesn't cause ambiguity but there are ways of avoiding them while still varying the sentence structure. If you've culled a dozen footnotes without any great loss I suspect more could go; war memorials don't really lend themselves to footnotes but if you look at some of my history articles (eg British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War and my current project, Death of James Ashley) you'll see that I do make use of them, but for side details that would clutter up the prose. I'll have a look at the prose etc and the point-by-point on the footnotes in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Twelve footnotes, HJM—calm down, calm down  :) anyway, I look forward, with pleasure, to implementing any actionable or quantifiable suggestions you might present. All the best, ——Serial ^# 14:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes

The elephant in the room, eh. The good news first: I've removed eight footnotes and cut 3,316 bytes from them, so what remains should be leaner and tighter.

Conversely, it seems that we have different—perhaps fundamental—philosophical approaches to the role and purpose of footnotes; maybe we write articles on very distant topics. Illustrating the difference in our respective approaches—the difference, not right or wrongness—I had a look at both our last ten FACs: over the course of yours, you have used four footnotes. Mine? About 210. That's multiple reviews in which multiple reviewers accept—if not agree—the use footnotes play in contextualising. I'll go to each one in this article shortly, but briefly, a footnote is useful for illustrating the relevance of the cited material without distracting the flow of the prose. For example, individuals (important ones only, of course): who are they and what have they done to be part of the story? Places: why (if at all) is something happening in a certain place relevant? Dates: does something integral to the story continues in its own, less relevant but yet related path? Most importantly, to provide context that presents alternative, relevant, interpretations which again would be distracting in the main body; to attempt to answer/fulfil obvious questions that may be thrown up to the reader—even Randy!—in the course of the narrative; and to clarify, and possibly resolve contradictions in the sources.

This is especially important in an article like this, in which it is impossible to avoid the overarching hypothesis of the duke and duchess' Nazi sympathies, but in which, when put in context, it becomes apparent that they were very much not alone. And this isn't an academic or ancient argument: he's still remembered for it today. These footnotes, by putting the event in the context of the time, are ensuring a difficult to achieve neutrality and one which would be harmed, I think, by their removal. Having said that, the extent to which I've trimmed them hopefully indicates the depth of consideration I've gave your suggestions, and in many cases, I went with them. But I'm afraid I couldn't accept—at face value—a stand-alone statement that x-amount of footnotes in a y-sized article is too much; all things being equal, everything should be considered on its merits.

Anyway, that's my stall HJ Mitchell, and I hope it isn't an offensive one to you. ——Serial ^# 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• As of revision [1], analysis of footnotes:

1. Replies to the question: who had she married?
2. The source in the text says he was acting against his Cor. oath: this points out that, actually, he never took one, so the reader is left to draw their own conclusions (presumably, off the record, that Cadbury is referring to the spirit rather than the letter of the oath).
3. This in response to an above reviewer: for NPOV purposes, it emphasises that "Germanic sympathies" shouldn't be misinterpreted, as the family was still very German, culturally.
4. Important to point out that these allegations are clearly fictive, but it would be out of place to say so in the lead.
5. Answers the question, well when did she get a state tour?
6. Contextualises King G's being "horrified", Europe being on an edge etc.
7. Clarifies that there is an alternative interpretation of his intentions.
8. Answers the question, how did his friends try and help?
9. Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.
10. Explains who Bedaux was and why he is important to the story.
11. Ditto, Weideman, and that he had a previous, if second-hand, link to the duke.
12. Contextualises a conspiracy theory; viz. that the author is popular but unreliable professionally.
13. Notes a pre-existent# link between Ley and Bedaux for the reader to consider.
14. Explains why Hitler believed what he did.
15. Answers the (rather obvious!) question, if he was called Edward why did his cousin call him David?
16. Explains, briefly, why he was royal but she was not.
17. Direct quote from a primary source illustrating the govt's position in detail, which would be too much for the text to bear.
18. I'm finding it difficult to see, personally, how the opinion of Hitler's chief propagandist on the article's major protagonist is not relevant!
19. Demonstrates the links between Windsor, his brother and their cousins. Again contextualises his thoughts as part of a broader canvas.
20. Explains background.
21. Expands upon Ley and provides context for historians—and the duchess'—opinions.
22. As I suggested above, it would be out of place in the article to point out that, actually, what G. said came to pass very shortly.
23. Again, this was suggested by another reviewer, pointing out that, actually, Hitler's Nazi salutes were not as unusual as we might think today. Everyone, including lowly beings as football players, did it. Essential NPoV context.
24. You suggested moving this into the body: not a bad point, although the line about him spending most of his time there helps explain why they met him there rather than Berlin, say, which after all, was the centre of their tour.
25. Contextualises Halifax's trip.
26. Again, for NPOV reasons, contextualising the duke's opinions on the communist threat by noting how common it was within the British establishment.
27. Background on why Bedaux—and, therefore, Windsor by association—was disliked in the states.
28. Alternative interpretation, unnecessary in the body, for the US government's view.
29. I don't think explaining why an island in the middle of nowhere was on the duchess' mind is unhelpful to the reader...

Did some more cutting along the way, as it goes, as having formulated my reasoning beforehand (above) focussed and my approach. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-D

I don't think that I'll review fully, but would note that "Even so, says Vickers, Hitler made the Windsors "travel a long way to see him",[25] as he was at his Bavarian retreat known as the Berghof" suggests that this historian was ill-informed. The Berghof was more than a "retreat", as Hitler more than a third of each year there, and foreign visits to it were a significant element of Nazi propaganda (see Bombing of Obersalzberg#Background). Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. To clarify, "retreat" was my word, not the authors. And to be fair, I can see their point: Everywhere the article mentions the Windsors' as going—Berlin, Karinhall, Pomerania—are all in the far northwest. The furthest south they (seem to have) ever gone was Essen. And that's still >800 KM from the Berghof. Having said that, it's not particularly encyclopedic information anyway, so I've got rid of it. That also allows a couple of sentences to be shortened. Also, although I already mention Halifax and Lloyd George visiting Germany, your suggestion re. the number of guests he received at the Berghof is well-made, and I've added a bit highlighting that anyone who was anyone was probably seen there at some point. Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated. ——Serial ^# 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg needs a more extensive FUR, and would suggest using a different fair-use tag
• File:Oscar_Nathaniel_Solbert.jpg: the UK tag requires that the image include details of research done into authorship, and what's the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Neville_Chamberlain.jpg
• File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I suggest using full face portraits of both of them.

Excellent idea, should've thought of that. I've used this one of them together from just a couple of years earlier.

• "Having abdicated the British throne in December 1936, his brother Albert has taken the throne as King George VI." This sounds clumsy. Maybe "He abdicated the British throne in December 1936, and his brother Albert became king as King George VI."

Used that, thanks!

• "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of the Duke's lack of judgement and good counsel, rather than sympathy with the Nazi regime." But he was getting good counsel from the govt and allies such as Churchill and Beaverbrook, and he chose not to listen to them. In the historiography section you quote one historian acquitting him of Nazi sympthies and one condemning him for them. This does not seem like a consensus.

I deliberately avoided suggesting there was a consensus, I hope (note, tend to...), but it's a fair point about counsel: I've gone for "...tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received"?

• "Even had Simpson converted to Anglicanism, both her previous husbands were still alive." This seems like a non-sequitur, as you have not said that her religion was an issue, or what it was.

Fair point; I can't even remember why it's important if indeed it is. So removed it and recast the sentence.

• "Windsor's great-grandmother was the daughter of a German princess". His great-grandfather was German.

That's absolutely true of course, and I admit my original sentence might have looked a little forced: but that was because the source wrt the family's Germanity was Propopoulos, and he only mentions Victoria. But, via a different source, I've added Albert (which pf course conveniently emphasises their German-roots even more!)

• You are inconsistent whether to capitalise "king". I think it is correct to capitalise when it is short for George VI, but not in "believing that, as King, Windsor would have strengthened Anglo-German relations".

Check.

• "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that "in his farewell broadcast Edward had said: 'I now quit altogether public affairs', but almost in the next sentence: 'If at any time in the future I can be found of service to His Majesty in a private station, I shall not fail.'" I am not clear what point you are making here. He said that he would always serve his majesty but then undertook the tour against George's opposition, so why the "however"?

There was a reason, I think there had been a later "although" which has since been lost. Anyway, well caught: removed.

• "However well-intentioned, says Bloch". You should give his full name and link on first mention.

Done.

• "Bedaux has been described by Bloch as an "enigmatic time and motion tycoon".[15] John Vincent suggests that Bedaux planned" Why the past tense in the first case and present in the second?

Yes, thanks; I intended all modern opinion to be in the present and those of contemporaries in the past. Have adjusted a few more occurrences (also answering your point below, there!).

• "This led him to suggest that the Duke should "head up and consolidate the many and varied peace movements throughout the world"." Suggested to who?

Clarified it was to the duke.

• "although says that at that stage, ot was still only" Typo for "it"?

Absolutely, cheers.

• "The author Hugo Vickers has suggested that Edward" In this and other cases you are inconsistent whether to use past or present case when quoting historians. I also do not see how it helps the reader to describe someone as an author - everyone you quote must be an author!

See above for tense. True re. author; have changed to biographer and journalist.

• "However well-intentioned, says Bloch" Does Bloch think that the tour was well intentioned? Is that the opinion of other historians?

No, not really; he implies that it was done for the best of reasons (i.e. the working class, etc), but I admit it's a bit of a reach to draw any personal intentions from that.

• "Deborah Cadbury suggests that it was at a 1936 dinner that Hitler may have first learned of King Edward VIII's sympathies." In the lead you say that he did not have Nazi sympathies. Do not comments like this belong in historiography rather than only quoting historians who acquit him?

I'm tempted: although it seems slightly too detailed for a general overview of his politics to mention a specific occasion. I've adjusted the lead to mention his pro-German sympathies, but I think it's important to emphasise that being pro-German (which he was: while on the tour, he regularly, reports one RS, "slipped into his mother tongue, German", for example) did not necessarily equate to being pro-Nazi (which is really unknown, although I suspect that, if there is any kind of historiographical consensus, it's that he was the former rather than the latter (notwithstanding that, like others, his fear of communism outweighed his dislike of Hitler)). If you think the Histogy section is too slanted towards "letting him off the hook", then I can probably find some more negatively-inclined press (I added Russian reactions to the "Reactions" section, and were pretty clear in their belief that his entire bloody family were Nazis!!)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking in here, Dudley Miles: I've implemented most of your suggestions (although apologies for my ?turgid? replies!) ——Serial ^# 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)