Talk:Otto von Bismarck

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Otto von Bismarck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170315175229/http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322 to http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/12322

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Beyond My Ken: My recent edits were minor since they had no effect on content. The article is a bit of a mess, the pix are not in thumb or upright, some are above headers so aren't level with the text and their layout is a bit of a slalom down the page. Citations and references are in double column, which makes it pointless to keep them in alphabetical order and many are in citation rather than cite book format, which means that they're covered in harv error notices (only visible if you have a page like User:Keith-264/common.js this) and few of them have isbn numbers. The article is unworthy of B class until these failings are remedied. I was also puzzled at biblio' labels like Book being prefaced by two colons, bolding is enough isn't it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello?Keith-264 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed this as well. ―Gregorius II 22:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I have resolved the various Harvard warnings that were present in the Bibliography section. The Notes section has not yet been fixed. ―Gregorius II 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Appeal To Empress Frederick

In my opinion, the following reference, which was contained in an old version of the article, should be restored. It is indicative of how Bismarck had completely alienated so many people. When Bismarck realized that his dismissal was imminent:

All Bismarck’s resources were deployed; he even asked Empress Frederick to use her influence with her son on his behalf. But the wizard had lost his magic; his spells were powerless because they were exerted on people who did not respect them, and he who had so signally disregarded Kant’s command to use people as ends in themselves had too small a stock of loyalty to draw on. As Lord Salisbury told Queen Victoria: 'The very qualities which Bismarck fostered in the Emperor in order to strengthen himself when the Emperor Frederick should come to the throne have been the qualities by which he has been overthrown.' The Empress, with what must have been a mixture of pity and triumph, told him that her influence with her son could not save him for he himself had destroyed it. [Michael Balfour, The Kaiser and his Times, Houghton Mifflin (1964) p. 132]Italus (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image layout

The current layout has numerous images that are far too large; that overlap sections unnecessarily; that dislodge headers and quotes from flush left; among other problems. I cleaned up many of these issues with this layout. My layout also moved some images closer to the relevant text. This revert states that the previous layout was "superior." Perhaps I shrunk the images a bit smaller than necessary, but otherwise this statement is clearly not the case. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that similar changes were made in December by Keith-264 and were reverted by the same editor, also with insufficient reason. Keith-264 also started a thread above inquiring about the revert and received no response. These changes simply bring the layout in line with MoS policies WP:LAYIM, MOS:IMGLOC and MOS:IMGSIZE. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Note, please, that MOS is a guideline. It is not policy, and it is not mandatory. The changes you, and Keith-264, made do not improve the article, and the current layout is superior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes they did, the pics etc are far too big and overwhelm the text. It looks like you're outside the consensus.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarify liberalism in social legislation section

There is this paragraph that seems to be an excerpt.

granting social rights to enhance the integration of a hierarchical society, to forge a bond between workers and the state so as to strengthen the latter, to maintain traditional relations of authority between social and status groups, and to provide a countervailing power against the modernist forces of liberalism and socialism.

Perhaps it would be useful to add that this is about liberalism (classical liberalism?) and not Modern liberalism in the United States. --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Linked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The Liberal Party is the key here--Bismark moved from support to opposition. Bismarck is not likely to be confused with John F Kennedy. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, but I don't see any harm in the wikilinks I added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that "liberal" means something like progressive or social democrat in the USA and it's starting to be used in the same way in the UK while liberal most often refers to economic liberalism in European politics as it might have done in Bismarck's time. --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we understand what the issue is, but the fact that Bismarck was a 19th-century German personage and not a 20th-century or 21st-century American or European mitigates against any misunderstanding. Context is, after all, everything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

CE

Added ref=harv or ref=harvid to references and managed to get rid of most of the red in the footnotes but I fear that many of the references that have now got harv warnings are referred to in the text but not by sfns. 'Twill be a labour of Hercules to impose a consistent citation format on such a sprawling article. It dosn't help ither when someone meddles with the alphasort and replaces it with asinine columns half-way through. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Columns are now automatically set by reflist and do not have to be specified. The notes here are not "footnotes" they are "endnotes", and when using notes which reference sources in a bibliography, as the harvard system does, it is best to have both in the same section. This set-up is long-standing status-quo and, by policy, should not be screwed around with if there is no compelling reason to do so. The work being done on fixing the references is laudable, but this other stuff is not. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. Look up sfn before you have apoplexy and look up WP:OWN and remember that there are three interested editors, two of whom agree. You don't wield a veto. Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The changes I have reverted have nothing whatsoever to do with sfn referencing. Please got a WP:CONSENSUS on this page before you make that change again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wah! You have lost all sense of proportion and you still haven't done your homework on the sfn format. I've finished for the non so perhaps you'd like the last word? Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead too long

As per Wiki guidelines, introductions more than four paragraphs long should be cleaned up. I'm unable to add the relevant Wiki template but if somebody else could, or attempt to address the overlong intro themselves, that'd be great. 149.5.89.21 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

no that'a only a suggested guideline for the 5 million articles. This article is about one of the most influential and active leaders in the last two centuries. Thus it follows the Wiki guideline esp the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. as well as When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Rjensen (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Over 20 orders but no post nominals...?

I was doing a little research, and I wanted to add any post-nominal letters he might have 5o his name in the essay. Alas, 15 minutes and an abundance of purple links later, it doesn't appear that any of the orders, chivalrous or otherwise, grant or granted post nominals. Do any of them have PNs or did they grant them but Bismarck just didn't use them in or because of his title? Lockmelon (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)