Talk:Frederick III, German Emperor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Titling

Why move Friedrich III of Germany to Friedrich of Germany? Surely if there's a reason to move it it should be documented? -- Someone else 23:45 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Indeed. And if it happens, the person who does it should change the article to reflect the move. -- Zoe

I think he is Friedrich III as the German Empire followed the Prussian numbering

Fonzy, I'm wondering why you moved Friedrich III of Germany to Friedrich of Germany. It seems to me that Friedrich III of Germany is the better choice. -- Someone else 21:24 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

As there was no Friedrich I or II of Germany. -fonzy (unless i am mistaken)

But who calls him Friedrich of Germany? The III is used to distinguish him from the various Friedrichs of Prussia, of which Germany is a successor state.... I think he is always referred to as Friedrich III, but I'm willing to be educated.... -- Someone else

Acording to this book i own with lists of lots of world leaders, it says the 3 kings of Germany were:(Note they names are the English Aquivilent)

  • William I
  • Frederick
  • William II

And The New York Times Almanac lists him as Frederick III. My understanding is that the article name should reflect how the person is most frequently referred to. If it's "Frederick of Germany" that's fine, but it's peculiar that the article does not refer to him as Frederick of Germany other than in its title, and it would be good to explain the reasons moves are made in the "Talk" page, and include any alternative names in the article itself. Part of the problem is that "Germany" keeps springing, phoenix-like, from the ashes of its former incarnations, yet the numbering of its leaders reflects not only their role in Germany but their other titles: thus the Hohenzollerns are generally referred to (if anglicized) as Frederick William, Frederick III, Frederick I, Frederick William I, Frederick II, Frederick William II, Frederick William III, Frederick William IV, William I, Frederick III, and William II, in that order .... -- Someone else

hmm well i dotn knwo much about that side of history i just prefer frederich of Germany as he he was the only one of modern Germany. -fonzy

If it's just a personal preference, then, I'll move him back to his more common name and leave "Friedrich of Germany" as a redirect. I'll move all this chat to HIS talk page, so you can delete it here if you don't want it cluttering up YOUR talk page! --- Someone else

the Hohenzollerns were Kings of Prussia at the same time that they were Emperors of Germany (the German Empire was composed of separate kingdoms) so Friedrich was King Friedrich III of Prussia and at the same time Emperor Friedrich I of Germany PMelvilleAustin 22:38 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

No he wasn't, he was Emperor Friedrich III as well, even though he was the first German emperor of that name. Känsterle 12:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I read somewhere, i cant remember where, that Frederick was in a coma all of his short reign, can anyone confirm this?

tate

No he was not, although he was very ill during his entire reign due to old age and cancer. --Banime (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. *glances at article* Well, I thought it mentioned that. Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Regardless I'm glad this all got cleared up. He is Frederick III. And no he was not in a coma his entire reign just seriously ill. --Banime (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

people moving articles

Can people just not move articles without explaining why, and without notifying of an intent to move on the talk page? While I would agree that the page as it was formerly titled was somewhat ambiguous, the new title is terrible. I'd prefer Friedrich III, German Emperor, and moving the other two German Emperors to similar locations. If not that, then I'd much prefer Friedrich III of Germany (1831-1888). john k 23:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that this page should be moved to another title again, since Friedrich III, German Emperor facilitates confusion with Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor. At the very least, their should a line explaining the problem and a link. Martg76 10:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There should be a dab link, but it should not determine name. I am waiting to put one in until the move is decided. Septentrionalis 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, note that the previous title of the page (Friedrich III of Germany (Hohenzollern)) isn't that uncommon. Just look at the List of rulers of Austria, where there are many such cases, e.g. Leopold V of Austria (Babenberg) and Leopold V of Austria (Habsburg), since they started to count from one again when the Habsburgs took over . Martg76 10:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad this got settled and I like the solution. --Banime (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Coma Comment Removed...

I removed the Coma Comment about Friedrich brief rule of Germany.

These are some the of the things he did before he died. 1) Attended Crown Council meetings. He used notes to ask questions or answer them. 2) Confirme Bismark as Chancellor and Minister President. 3) Gave his wife the Order of the Black Eagle, the highest prussian award only can be given by the King of Prussia. 4) Received Queen Victoria on her vist to Germany. Attended the wedding of his son Henry to the Princess Iren of Hesse. 5) Received King Oscar of Sweden.

None of which can be done if you are in a coma. Note that the last event occured on June 13, two days before Fredericks death.

He was Frederick III of Prussia, and reigned as Frederick I of Germany, but is more often referred to as his Prussian regnal number with his german regnal title, IIRC. The article's title should be changed to reflect his German regnal title, as that was the highest of his titles. -Alex 12.220.157.93 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you about the coma comments! He was not in a coma. Either way, I believe Frederick III is more appropriate and how he was referred to. --Banime (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Friedrich-III's more enlightened vision of Germany?

Perhaps I am blinded by the fact that I am both German AND a huge fan of Kaiser Friedrich-III but I wonder why there is no mention of how he and his wife wanted to change the Empire? Is it for reasons of space? Had Friedrich-III survived with his wife to lead out his life as Emperor of Germany, it would certainly have become a much kinder, gentler place with a 20th Century history of a totally different flavor. He was a "one-of-a-kind" for Germany and it is a shame that he and his ideas were so quickly stiffled. He is not known in Germany as "Friedrich der Gütige" (Frederick the Benevolent) for nothing. Just curious... Erich-Dieter Groebe

If you want, you can go ahead and create a section and enter these ideas yourself. Remember Be Bold. Prsgoddess187 14:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that had Friedrich III's reign been 30 years longer, there may not be as big WWI and almost certainly Nazism would probably not take root in the first half of the 20th century. Any historians have done on this area of research? --JNZ 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have and written papers on it (not published) but when doing research there are a number of articles and books about his liberal ideals. Although its difficult to predict what would have happened, its a general consensus among historians that Germany would have gone in a more liberal direction, although the exact extent of that is up to discussion and debate. Some historians even disagree with this entirely and believe he was not as liberal as he seemed and Germany would have remained on its current path despite his longer rule (mostly due to how his military life was still a large part of his history, etc.). Either way I'm still reading the article and considering what additions can be made on the subject. --Banime (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally found all the proper sources to mention the liberal things he did throughout his life throughout the article, as well as writing on historian's views of what could or could not have happened in the Legacy section. I believe everything is written NPOV, presenting both sides of his legacy, and it is all properly sourced. I believe this substantially improves the article, as FredIII is most notable among historians and publications for what his lost impact, rather than what he did. --Banime (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was The title "of Germany" may be commonly used, but it is blatantly wrong as it was intentionally not adopted. See Wilhelm_I,_German_Emperor#Kaiser. The numbering is related to the Kings of Prussia anyway. --Matthead 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support the proposed move to Friedrich III, German Emperor. Actually, I'd prefer Frederick III, German Emperor, but the poll does not include that question. Shilkanni 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak-ish support I support this format, but would optimally prefer to have "unique" cases of titling discussed as additions to the naming conventions. I agree with Shilkanni on the preference for Frederick though. Charles 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Prsgoddess187 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although I too would much prefer "Frederick". john k 11:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support, as I prefer "Frederick III" instead of "Friedrich III". Olessi 13:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. disambiguating from the Holy Roman Emperors/kings of Germany is worth it. Septentrionalis
  • Support Noel S McFerran 02:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Voices above may also be relevant here.

  • Frederick. What he usually called in English. Septentrionalis 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support My choice of a forename. Charles 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Frederick is more commonly used, certainly. john k 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as this is the "English" wiki, I say go with Frederick. Prsgoddess187 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Olessi 15:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Shilkanni 09:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC). Frederick is better than Friedrich.

Number

Voices above may also be relevant here.

  • I or none Only German Emperor called Frederick; he was Frederick III as King of Prussia. The naming conventions say that in this case we should follow present usage: Juan Carlos I, but Victoria; I'm not sure which is more common. Septentrionalis 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • III Seems to be a case of using the highest ordinal, as is the case with English/Scots/British monarchs. Charles 17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • III It would seem that they followed the highest ordinal theory. I agree with Charles on this one. Prsgoddess187 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • III He is always called as "Frederick III." The fact that he was the only German Emperor called Frederick is completely irrelevant. Victor Emmanuel II was the first King of Italy called Victor Emmanuel. Edward VII was the first King of the United Kingdom called Edward. In both cases, numbering of monarchs didn't reset with the creation of a new kingdom, but followed from a predecessor kingdom - Sardinia in the case of Victor Emmanuel; England in that of Edward VII. The same is true for Frederick. The fact is that he is universally called "Frederick III," and not "Frederick I" or just "Frederick". Whether he is "Frederick III" as German Emperor or as King of Prussia seems somewhat irrelevant, if not a meaningless question. Ordinals aren't a matter of objective truth. They are a matter of what ordinal (if any) was actually used by the person in question, and what ordinal is used to refer to them by posterity. In neither case is the answer "Frederick" (without ordinal) or "Frederick I". john k 00:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • III - agree with John. Olessi 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • III or none. III is the only ordinal used of him in respectable sources. Any other ordinal seems just an artificial invention without enough support in real sources. If the ordinal is really so contested, it could be left out. Shilkanni 09:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Start a discussion at the naming conventions page if you feel strongly about this. Charles 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that page seems to be busy with Polish monarchs, who would care for 3 Germans there?--Matthead 23:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Who would care for 3 Germans there?" -Perhaps the Polish editors :) Let's see... Shilkanni 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I started a section at the bottom of that page. See here. I feel the titling is similar enough to that of the Holy Roman Emperors that the German Emperors warrant explicit mention. Charles 05:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are three questions here: name, number, and title. I have added subsections for the first two, since they will be discussed, and they should be separated from the question of title, which is what is actually raised. Septentrionalis 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Result

Page moved to Frederick III, German Emperor. Eugène van der Pijll 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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

In fiction


This entry is not a solicitation, but a sincere effort to highlight one of the few mentions of Friedrich Wilhelm (Friedrich III) in popular literature.

The story in question is one of the very few treatments of Friedrich III or KronPrinz Friedrich Wilhelm in fiction anywhere. In other articles books are cited (i.e. "Tecumseh in Fiction").

The site referred to is a commercial site, BUT this is not a commercial section of the site -- it's a creative section.

This seems dubious. Besides which, I'd imagine there've been a fair number of fictional portrayals. He appears in several episodes of the 70s BBC miniseries Fall of Eagles, for instance. The instance you highlight does not appear to be notable. john k 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It also seems to remind me of a "in popular culture" type section which is discouraged. His history is enough. --Banime (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means or how this reflects the quality of the article, hopefully we can get it assessed more accurately soon. --Banime (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I'll be working on this article. I've seen a few less adequately worded areas and I think I can make it more encyclopedic. I'll also look at any additions about his liberal tendencies and see what I can do there. --Banime (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the sections needing most work is his "Legacy" section. I've already started making it more NPOV and encyclopedic because right now it reads in a biased manner. It rarely mentions the opposing views of historians stating that he may not have liberalized Germany at all. It speaks as if Frederick III was the guiding light of Germany, Bismarck was a devil, and William II tried his hardest to create WWI. Although there are merits to each of these assumptions, that is not wikipedia's place to decide. We must simply record the different viewpoints of historians and what actually happened. I've started looking for more sources so I can adequately cite everything as well because I've researched him a lot and never heard of him ever having specific plans to change the Empire, just a general liberal ideal which may or may not have benefitted it. I'll keep contributing and hope others can help me out as well. --Banime (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally finished his legacy section. Properly sourced, NPOV as far as I can tell, provides both sides to his legacy and explains why is he most notable. Read above I wrote more about it on an earlier comment. Also I nominated this article for good article status now after months and months of working on it (years maybe? haha) so if anyone can continue to improve it please do so. This article is close to being absolutely great! --Banime (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Title again

Since his predecessor and successor have been moved to Wilhelm I, German Emperor, and Wilhelm II, German Emperor, are there any objections to moving this article to Friedrich III, German Emperor, for consistency amongst the Wilhelmine emperors? This is a request for only this biography; I maintain that the other Brandenburg-Prussian rulers should remain at their traditional anglicized names. Olessi (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable, I would support this, even though I believe Frederick III is probably more prevalent. Any other thoughts? --Banime (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
As I look again this has already been discussed and Frederick III was decided on. However, if brought up again it could always be changed. For now though I think we should stay with the consensus and keep Frederick III. --Banime (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An average military state?

dont like that... probably 4th or 5th most powerful country at that time(1815). hardly average... Changeee plzz in 1st para —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.207.148 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on how you look at it, obviously. But because the meaning is unclear, the word average should not be used. It could be considered average when taking into account the other major powers of Europe, or it could be considered above average when considering more, etc. I'll find a way to remove the word. --Banime (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount Fredrick William

This mountain in British Columbia was named for Frederick III --KenWalker | Talk 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it should be put into the article? I don't think it really merits it. Many places, streets, mountains, and other things are named after real life figures and every instance is not documented in their encyclopedic biographies --Banime (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frederick III, German Emperor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. This article needs a bit of work before it should qualify, in my eyes, as worthy of GA status. I'm thus putting it on Hold. That said, it's a pretty good article, with solid prose, grammar, coverage and compliance with the manual of style. Good work!

Criticisms: First, I think the lede should be re-written to better summarise the article. Let it discuss some of the highlights of his personal life, for instance. POV seems to be a big issue in this article. I noticed, while reading it, a strong liberal leaning and a very apologist tone. Statements such as "his father's unusually long reign and longevity never let Frederick III capitalize on his military successes, popularity, and youth as emperor" are too common, and prevent the article from complying with WP:NPOV. The article also focuses quite heavily on Frederick's liberalism... are there other interesting characterisations of his short rule that might be discussed instead?

The referencing is generally very good; but there are some annoying holes. Ex.:

  1. paragraph at the end of ==Legacy==
  2. "He is buried in a mausoleum attached to the Friedenskirche in Potsdam."
  3. "One highlight during this period was the happy celebration of his silver (25th) wedding anniversary on January 25, 1883. "
  4. "As commander, Frederick also had great victories in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, where he commanded the III Army at Wissembourg, Wœrth, Sedan and during the Siege of Paris."
  5. "The rigorously educated Vicky, also known as the Princess Royal, shared her husband's liberal views. The couple had eight children during their marriage: William in 1859, Charlotte in 1860, Henry in 1862, Sigismund in 1864, Victoria in 1866, Waldemar in 1868, Sophie in 1870 and Margaret in 1872. Sadly, both Princes Sigismund and Waldemar died in childhood. Frederick's eldest son, William, suffered from a withered arm due to his difficult and potentially deadly breech birth. Relations between both parents and William would prove to be difficult throughout the years."

Also problematic is the article's very flat structure: there's only one subsection in the whole page. Perhaps you could split the article into two sections, "personal life" and "political career". In addition, I recommend you incorporate the "See also" section into the article. That one link does not warrant its own section. Fix these problems, and I'll re-review it. If you don't think you can do it in a reasonable amount of time (say, a few weeks), I can fail the article, and you can re-nominate it under no time constraints. Happy editing! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll get to work and let you know what I've improved. --Banime (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have a few quick questions on a few of your points. Some of the statements are linked to other pages within wikipedia that confirm what they assert, should those still be referenced or would it be too repetitive? For instance:

  1. "As commander, Frederick also had great victories in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, where he commanded the III Army at Wissembourg, Wœrth, Sedan and during the Siege of Paris."
  2. "The rigorously educated Vicky, also known as the Princess Royal, shared her husband's liberal views. The couple had eight children during their marriage: William in 1859, Charlotte in 1860, Henry in 1862, Sigismund in 1864, Victoria in 1866, Waldemar in 1868, Sophie in 1870 and Margaret in 1872. Sadly, both Princes Sigismund and Waldemar died in childhood. Frederick's eldest son, William, suffered from a withered arm due to his difficult and potentially deadly breech birth. Relations between both parents and William would prove to be difficult throughout the years."
  3. "He is buried in a mausoleum attached to the Friedenskirche in Potsdam."

Most of those are linked to other wikipedia pages which explain more in detail and confirm what is stated. Right now only Waldemar is unsourced as he does not have a wikipedia page, I'll look for a source for him. What do you think? --Banime (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding sources as we speak for most of these anyway, but if you think it will be too repetitive then please let me know and I'll remove them. --Banime (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting question. I'd say "play it safe" and recommend you copy the inline citations from the linked articles. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


  1. I think his German full name should be before the anglicised.
  2. "His father lived to be almost 91 years old and had a long reign which did not let Frederick III assume the throne until late in his life." seems oddly worded to me. Perhaps could be reworded a bit. Grsztalk 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit what you said, Grsz11. Is that what meant for the name change? Also, is the intro clearer now? Thanks. --Banime (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm seeing more of a content issue. Friedrich was 56 when he assumed the crown, which isn't very old. The reason he didn't reign long is not so much because his father lived to be 99, but because he died early. Grsztalk 20:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
True. However, his father was in his 70s when Germany was unified. No one expected him to live 23 or so years longer (I didn't look up exact dates/ages but these years are around the right amount). But you are correct also. It was a combination of both. He was a young (and healthy) crown prince, just came off military success in the wars, had liberal tendencies, and his father was old. Then his father kept living on and on, and he became sick. I guess I'm trying to figure out a good way to explain that in the introduction, do you have any ideas? Maybe I can focus on both factors in the intro, or simply his health if you think that would be best. --Banime (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I made a quick change which I think helps the introduction. --Banime (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

I've made many improvements to the article, based on your concerns. Here are the specifics:

  • Removed see also section, moved the link to a see also link in the family section.
  • Added more links to online versions of references.
  • Changed NPOV words throughout, rewrote prose throughout. I'll cite specific examples that you brought up.
  • Added a citation for his children's names and birthdates.
  • Removed the unsourced comment about celebrating his 25th wedding anniversary. Although it was his 25th anniversary I could not find any source saying it was celebrated.
  • Added better section organization.
  • Worked some more on the intro to meet your concerns.
  • Added citations for the battles he fought in and the army he commanded.
  • Worked on the legacy section to meet your concerns and added more citations.
  • Added citation for his burial in the Friedenskirche.
  • I think I did what Grsz11 asked above, but I'll wait for him to confirm.

Also, to address your concerns about the weight of the article focusing on liberalism, I tried my hardest to make sure everything met NPOV standards. However, historians today pretty much only talk about the potential effect that Frederick would or would not have had on German liberalism, and it is his most important aspect. I tried to adequately source it in the legacy section especially, as well as show both sides (some who thought he would have brought Germans to a more liberal path, and some who thought that he would not despite his liberal leanings). Basically his entire life is studied today based on his liberalism, so I don't think I can find anything else to focus on. He was the emperor who arguably could have ended the world wars before they began, but he died early. Obviously I did not want to make such a very strong claim in the article, that is what historians basically argue about and write about when it comes to Frederick III.If you have any more questions or concerns, or if I did not fix one of your concerns adequately, please let me know and I'll get to work on fixing them. --Banime (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to re-read the whole thing yet. But I wanted to ask... what would you say to creating a section "Liberalism", and moving all of the relevant material there? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That could be possible though I'm not sure how it would affect the article yet (either good or bad). I'll play around with it and see, and if you think you want me to head that direction then its a possibility. I'll reread the article as you do and triple check that all of the comments about how he was liberal are npov. --Banime (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-review: Pass

Upon re-review, I deem this article worthy of GA status. Congratulations! I do think you should make the changes listed below:

  • Cite: "Frederick's eldest son, William, suffered from a withered arm due to his difficult and potentially deadly breech birth. Relations between both parents and William would prove to be difficult throughout the years."
Done. --Banime (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Link "deputize" in "There Queen Victoria allowed him to deputize for her on numerous occasions.[18]" Alternatively, you can explain, in article, what "deputize" means in this context.
Clarified. --Banime (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Years later, Bergman tried to prove to his medical students that he could have saved Frederick III by removing his larynx. He attempted that operation, but his patient died under the knife." These sentences are confusing: is "the patient" Frederick III? Did Bergman do the operation on Frederick or some other person? When exactly does Frederick die?
Clarified. --Banime (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "...Germany's militaristic path towards war." Which war?
Most of the sources leave it as a general "militaristic path" type thing, however one said he could have prevented World War I, the formation of the Weimar government, and the current German Republic (It was written Pre-World War II) specifically. Unfortunately it is a loaded question, as many historians believe WW1 caused WW2, and there is plenty of evidence supporting that theory. Then wouldn't he be preventing both wars? However because the sources either vaguely mention war or say World War I and its effects, I'm going to leave it at war. I'll keep your suggestion in mind, however, and if any sort of consensus is reached or if during this articles peer review it is brought up I will look at it again. --Banime (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "...have accepted liberalization regardless of his efforts." There should be a comma after "liberalization".
Done --Banime (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "...pushing Germany in a dangerous political, social, and military direction." Make this less poetic, ambiguous and POV.
Done. I mentioned World War I here since William II was obviously the leader of Germany during World War II. --Banime (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reword "... Emperor continued to fulfill his obligations as Emperor".
Done --Banime (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

With the above fixes made, the article should fulfil all of the necessary criteria. The article is written in a clear and straightforward manner, though there is some pretty informal language in ===Early life=== (e.x. "His parents' marriage was also not a love match.") The article complies with the MOS well-enough, though I did not check minor stuff. The in-line referencing (with the above exception) is very good. The article seems to be comprehensive, given the short reign of the subject matter. That said, I am no expert in the relevant histories. Still, there are no glaring ommisions to my untrained eye. The article, after the changes made in response to my first review, is, I believe, neutral enough. The section on "legacy" provides balanced critiques of his reign and the strength of his liberal movement. This article is stable and is illustrated by a satisfactory portrait. The GA criteria are thus met. You've done a good job. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I made all of the above fixes, and I'll keep looking through the article to improve the language. If you think of anything else please let me know as I'm going to keep improving this article. Thanks again. --Banime (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article

I found an interesting article by the NYTimes here which I believe is about Frederick and his riding ability (he tied for first in a riding contest). However, NYTimes may have mislabeled it as it says its from 1904. However, William II had no son named Frederick William so I believe they made a mistake. Anyone else have more information on it? --Banime (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is talking about William, German Crown Prince aka Frederick William Victor Augustus Ernest, eldest son of William II. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh I never knew his name was Frederick William. I should've known, thanks. --Banime (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Balance

At present, the Legacy section reflects Banime's enthusiasm about the possibility that Frederick, if he had lived, could have averted the First (and so presumably the Second) World War. It consists largely of a rechauffee of the sixty-year-old paper by Dorpalen, cited in the references, and a random selection of later sources.


I do not think Wikipedia articles should make any point; least of all should they make points about what might have happened; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no evidence that any of this is consensus at the present day; and Dorpalen, for what it is worth, is making the opposite case.

I do not oppose mentioning this material, or giving the references; one possible take of many is this edit of the article (diff). The balance tag is not {{POV}}; although this is intended to showcase the possibility of the liberal Enpire, the present text does mention all kinds of speculation. (Neither I nor the reader can know whether it is a complete or evenhanded account of the current guesswork on alternate history, however.) But a full paragraph in the lead, and three in the body, of speculative material is just too much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but I must restate many of the things that I posted in the FAC. First, please do not accuse me of anything. This is not Banime's enthusiasm about the possibility that Frederick, if he had lived, could have averted the First (and so presumably the Second) World War. but rather my enthusiasm that numerous secondary sources have said that. According to several guidelines from WP:RS, This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors and Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views. Everything here is from reliable authors and all significant views are covered, without any sort of POV, it shows all sides. You even said so yourself when you said "Dorpalen is making the opposite case" - exactly, every one of the sources is studying Frederick III with regards to this argument. You are saying the argument should not be brought up because it would show speculation, but every one of these reliable secondary sources have done the speculating, not any wikipedia editor. I'll ask you again if you'd like to find a number of sources that don't mention this argument while studying Frederick III, I doubt you'd find many at all. A significant amount of coverage has been given to the argument and therefore should be included. I'm not sure why you linked me to WP:CRYSTAL because that has nothing to do with this case at all, perhaps you meant to link me to some other policy or guideline? They can be confusing, CRYSTAL is more about upcoming releases and talk about the future. The problem you're having is determining if I made up this information, all of it is from reliable sources about the subject. Yes you can determine if its an evenhanded account, because all of the sides are covered. All of the authors and references are linked. I really think you are a bit misguided on this with regards to policy and I'd like you to rethink your position. I removed the tags based on the consensus at the FAC which I feel stands because of the supports. They can be readded if new consensus emerges. --Banime (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your readding of the tags into the article. All of the supports in the FAC read the entire article, and agreed that not only does it not require tagging, it was featured article material and supported. If that is not consensus then I'm not sure what is. As I said, if consensus changes then we can readd them. I will remove them one more time but after that I won't get into an edit war. --Banime (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I will give it thought; but I have been considering this since I first commented at FAC, some days ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I've been giving your side serious thought all along this FAC as well, but as I have said in my disagreements I think the arguments are flawed slightly and I can't think of how to change the article to appease those arguments without losing comprehensiveness. --Banime (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I object strongly to this removal of tags. No one else at FA has commented on this issue; there is no consensus about it. Banime and I disagree, and the tags mark the absence of consensus, since Banime is unwilling to offer a compromise edit; I would welcome a third opinion. I would not have tagged, but for this complete reversion; I would accept a text which addressed my concerns, however it was phrased. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A FAC is when an article gets vigorously combed through by editors to make sure it meets every standard and excels overall and is the best product from wikipedia. By supporting, those editors came to the consensus that this article was one of the best that wikipedia has. Not even a GA can have tags on it. By saying the editors have not come to a consensus is borderline assuming bad faith on the part of the reviewers, which is never good. Consensus can change, however, if you'd like to make a valid argument, but I really have trouble seeing it so far based on my and your replies. Like I said if consensus reaches it then I would of course not object to the tags, but, as of this moment, there is none. --Banime (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You have an extraordinary and unfounded optimism about FA. Most !votes of "Support Looks good to me" are signs of a skim of the article which has turned up nothing obvious to the eye of the reviewer. They do not guarantee much about the quality of the article, especially if the reviewer is out of their field; they are no guarantee at all that the reviewer has even looked at the rest of the FAC.
However, I repeat, I would like to support. This (and minor issues of prose) are my only grounds to object. Meet me in the middle, and have an FA; consult now - or later - with some editor you trust, and be guided by his opinion on how much speculation to put back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why my belief in FA is unfounded, its based on WP:AGF and my interactions so far with editors. On to your issue, like I said, I've comprimised with every editor so far, thats not the issue. Your draft of what you wanted is still at User:Banime/Sandbox if you'd like to improve it, but right now I can't see that being in an article. If I were to rewrite it I would rewrite it very similar to how it is now. You stated yourself that most secondary sources bring up this speculation when studying Frederick III. Most secondary sources. There are only two paragraphs within this article about it (two within the legacy section. The lead does not count because it is generally a summary and introduction to the rest of the article). Two paragraphs, when almost every source mentions it. It cannot be removed anymore, I believe, because of the amount of reliable significant coverage of Frederick's possible impact. --Banime (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Very well. You are unwilling even to rewrite a step closer to me than where it is now, which might itself relieve the problem. You insist on making these speculative points at length. From my point of view, there are three paragraphs of speculation and of tendentiousness about William II in the text (I agree with the tendency, as it happens, but that doesn't matter); they constitute an indiscriminate collection of information now, even if some of them derive from a sixty year old secondary source (Dorpalen). I commend to you the methods of WP:Dispute resolution; please let me know which. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not unwilling and never had been. I'll take another look and see again what can be changed or fixed or improved. If I feel like I cannot improve it because of your suggestions then I'll let you know again. I'll be looking at and possibly working on User:Banime/Sandbox. --Banime (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked through everything again, and I have to let you know that I really don't see anyway I can take action based on your oppose at this time. I've explained more at the FAC, please see it. Thank you for all of your helpful input for the article but this one point I still think you're mistaken. --Banime (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that {{balance}} should represent a consensus the article is unbalanced is odd; such a consensus should result in fixing the imbalance. They represent a disagreement about whether the article is unbalanced, which clearly exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For all intent, why should those tags exist?
  • Is the speculation by historians over Frederick's possible influence a tiny portion of studies on the man?
  • Is there an absence or negligence in this article of one side of the debate between factions of studies on this man?
  • Does one view overwhelm the other in terms of text?
  • Does the article "pooh-pooh" or "extol to the highest heavens" a faction?
In any case, I fail to see how the answer to any of the above can be construed as a "yes"; hence, how can this be unbalanced or inaccurate? The views of the historians are presented in equal weightage and without any judgement casted on them.
Regarding WP:CRYSTAL, please note that the guideline itself states,
"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
  • Are the "anticipated events" in this article verifiable?
  • Is the subject matter ("what if Frederick III lived?!") of "sufficiently wide interest" that the event would be notable if it occured?
Both answers are resounding "yes"; so how is it inappropriate to report "discussion and arguments" about this event if it is properly referenced? Jappalang (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The FAC is now over. I still believe that this form places {{WP:UNDUE]] weight on the speculation on the alternate-world speculation on what would have happened if Frederick had lived. (There seems to be no tag for that exactly, but {{unbalance}} seems as close as any.) The present selection of sources, almost entirely drawn at second hand from a single paper of 1948, is an indiscriminate collection of information. This exact and immediate reversion is strong evidence that Banime views this as his property, and is unwilling to make the slightest effort towards consensus; but I would welcome dispute resolution. Pick your form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for dispute resolution. Simply start up another conversation over the topic and see if a new consensus forms. No need to immediately tag and use your old edits which were not accepted during the FAC. State your facts here, if consensus forms it will. I'm reverting your changes until that happens (we've been over this a number of times). If you would like dispute resolution then I see no reason to stop you but I really don't think its needed. --Banime (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no old consensus. There is just the two of us, who disagree. If Banime had produced a new text, there would be no need for tags; but he reverted, which leaves no room for progress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture

William allowed Frederick few official duties, such as attending balls and socializing with foreign dignitaries.

This picture used in the article and its subtitle there seem not to be coherent: As far as I know it does not show Frederick with foreign dignitaries, but with the Lord Mayor and other officials of Berlin. -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct perhaps dignitaries was a better term (seen in the picture description). Let me know if you have other issues. --Banime (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Age at time of Death

At the top right it lists 56 as his age of death but under the German Empire and brief reign section it says 'at age 57...'

Also I believe a separate section is needed for his death. I had to look at bit just to research his cause of death and age. --EstimatedProphet (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

New section Unmarried, a Son is Born

I think, someboby with historic background should proofread this section. It's totally different to the German article, and have no (zero) references. THX --Pitlane02 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

So former Kings of Prussia were posthumously given imperial titles? Was this policy officially stated anywhere? Drutt (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 11:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

B Class Rating

I rated the article B Class after checking through the criteria. The article is devoid of any grammar and spelling mistakes. The article is also strong in hitting all of the points about Frederick III. I believe it covers adequately the possibilities to German liberalism and his possible affects on the world which he is most known for, while also contrasting which different opinions from historians with a lesser view of his potential impact. I believe the article can continue to be improved by finding a few other sources and viewpoints to further discuss this, as I believe this is why Frederick III is most notable, besides the fact that he was a German Emperor. The coverage and accuracy of the article is good. While everything I read was accurate and sourced, there could always be more sources in case someone is unfamiliar with the subject. The structure and overall supporting materials with the article is also a strength. I believe this article is definitely B class and is a good candidate for Good Article status after some improvements. This article is very stable and at this rate I can see the article remaining very strong.--Banime (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For future editors, the legacy section probably requires the most attention to ensure it stays NPOV and maintains its adequate citations for all opinions on Frederick III's potential impact or lack thereof. --Banime (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Class

The article has undergone a GA Review and is now GA class. See the talk page for more details. --Banime (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 28, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaiser Friedrich III

Frederick III (1831–1888) was German Emperor and King of Prussia for 99 days in 1888 during the Year of the Three Emperors. Following the unification of Germany in 1871 his father, William I, then King of Prussia, became the German Emperor, and on William's death at the age of 90 on 9 March 1888, the throne passed to Frederick, having by then been the Crown Prince for twenty-seven years. Frederick was suffering from cancer of the larynx and died on 15 June 1888, aged 56, following unsuccessful medical treatments for his condition. The timing of Frederick's death, and the length of his reign, are important topics among historians. The reign of Frederick III is considered a potential turning point in German history; many historians believe if Frederick succeeded to the throne sooner, he would have transformed Germany into a liberal state. They argue this would have averted the events preceding World War I. Other historians contend that Frederick's influence and political leanings were greatly exaggerated, noting that he tended to defer to his father and Bismarck when confronted, and would not have dared to challenge their conservatism even as ruler. (more...)

A Class

The article has passed an A Class review and is now A Class. For more information see the talk page or the results of the review here. --Banime (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article has undergone a very extensive peer review which you can see here. --Banime (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Translations-German to English

In the section entitled "Arms", I suggest that a better translation of Reichsadler is neither "Eagle of the Empire" nor "Empire's Eagle", but rather, "Imperial Eagle". Both of the current translations sound a little cumbersome or clumsy to the ear of a native English speaker.

Thanks! TheBaron0530 (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)TheBaron0530, 4. September 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_III,_German_Emperor/Archive_1&oldid=1136739877"