![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is a request for a discussion to get a sense of consensus, and to see if there is a possible of a community effort.
Frederick II is clearly a major, controversial figure, and the history of this webpage clearly shows that. However, the page has 412 watchers, of which I'm willing to bet nearly 100 are active and vigilant. There seems to be a kind of entente , so the page also seems to have achieved a somewhat precarious stability that has done a fair job at this point of his limitations with his strengths. This article was last reviewed in 2006, and though there is lots of new information and excellent citations, it still has a feeling of a B quality article.
I think one major reason is the citations, which I've been working on. I've made a lot of changes. Hopefully, they are relatively uncontroversial. But, I think I'm now moving into more difficult terrain, and want to tread carefully, if at all.
My goal is to ensure that when at all possible, references can be checked. I think my procedure is pretty standard:
But, what's the consensus about the unlinked citations in French, German and Polish? Not only they are almost inaccessible, but even if accessed the non-speaker would be challenged to translate the physical text. If the citation matches the prose, many of them seem to make great points. I'm just unsure they serve as citations when the become almost impossible to verify, particularly to someone outside of the country or without access to above-average academic resources.
My thought is that cleaning up the citations for English readers would be step in improving the article's quality. And would lead to making the secondary material more accessible. Again, I'm not particularly interested at making major changes in the article's prose; even more so, I'm not interested in triggering an edit war. Is attempting to clean up the citations worthwhile, even if it means swapping out existing ones? Or, finding equivalent English-speaking sources, or at least, foreign-language sources with links to the content?
Does anyone else think this is a project worth tackling? If so, is anyone else interested in helping out? Or, is Frederick resting on such a fine balance of consensus that it's best to leave him- like his namesake Frederick Barbarossa- slumbering undisturbed beneath his mountain of bytes (136,000+)? How do other feel? Wtfiv ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've done a first pass through the English language sources, trying to get as many accessible ones as I could find, templating the untemplated, linking the unlinked (when possible), and updating and archiving links what I could. Adding some new sources discovered along the way of trying to confirm. I'm going to start culling the foreign language sources. I'll try and find links to them. If I can find them, I'll keep them. but will cull out unlinked foreign sources, which may require changes to prose if its solely supported by only an unliked foreign language source. Here it goes...any help appreciated...
Wtfiv (
talk)
18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Done with most foreign-language sources. Still a handful left. Also, I would like to move all references from lead to main text. Any concerns? Some linked foreign sources remain. My solution so far is to delete texts that require sustained reading in foreign language. (Can be put in further reading.) And to link and translate relevant texts making brief texts, unless text is on a webpage that can be machine translated in browser. That way non-speakers of language could verify source. This addresses issue in archives about some unlinked languages (e.g. French, German) being privileged over others (e.g., Polish). This solution may not work, but it attempts to provide equity and verifiability. One can't stop edit wars in the future, but if the article is going to get foreign language sources, at least there's a precedence for what stays and what goes. (Assuming, of course, this solution is even acceptable) Wtfiv ( talk) 05:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I'm done with my major pass through the citations and some work on the prose (mainly reorganization for flow, reducing some duplications, rewording based on references, adding points made by references discovered during verification). I'm not sure if Frederick is ready beyond B quality yet, or not, but hopefully, these edits help him on his way. Wtfiv ( talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I moved this discussion from Rjensen's talk page to here for two reasons. Just so my multiple edits don't disrupt somebody else's page, and second, I realize I'd like to get any other opinions as I move through the editing process of this article, which as I mentioned has many watchers.
@ Rjensen: I saw you reverted my own edits on my own work. All the links I removed were put in solely by me in the past couple of days (e.g., 21:37, 25 February 2021). I didn't take out anybody else's links. (In fact, all I've been doing is trying to linking uncited material.) I figured linking to archive.org's individual pages for items in copyright would just muck things up. The issue is not copyright, but link stability If you think keeping the convenience of the page links I put in is indeed worth the possibility of having them break later.
Right now archive.org's situation with borrowing is unstable. But when I saw the situation with Anderson's Crucible of War, which is no longer accessible, I stopped linking and researched why it disappeared. It's because the publisher or Anderson revoked archive.org's right to leave it. This made me realize that many of the links I created have a high risk of breaking. I figure that I'd go with the safe and stable ones for now: out of archive.org out of copyright (as well as Google links). However, readers can easily go to archive.org for now, "borrow" the book, and scroll to the page. If access is denied later, there's not broken links.
For now, I'll move forward on the proposed project outlined without unreverting your reversion of my edit which was effectively reverting my own previous edits. Let's discuss to decide which version is best for this article.
Also, if you think my editing of the article in the context of trying to clean up the citations are too intrusive, please let me know too. Thanks! Wtfiv ( talk) 00:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The multiple references in this article make it a bit clunky to edit and to track all the references. Separating the references may make the article a bit more transparent and easier to edit. Would it be okay to move the references into a list, or is the consensus to leave them as is? Wtfiv ( talk) 21:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I've just finished an attempt to add accessible (linked to sources) citations for almost every major claim made, while respecting the core structure of the article as it has evolved over the years. I did remove sentences for which citations could not be found, modified many sentences to align with the citations, and substantially changed a few sections I found were problematic (i.e., narrative flow or claims did not back the consensus of sources I used). I also tried to annotate the reason for most major changes in the history so concerned editors know why a change was made and frequently used multiple sources to reduce reliance on one biographer. Thanks to any watchers of this article who were actually tracking the changes. I appreciate your patience and, to those of you who offered it, your help. Hopefully, the overall changes have made this article a bit stronger. Wtfiv ( talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe: I very much appreciate your edits that shorten the material. I think every edit you made improved the article! (I've been relatively conservative on cutting material from other editors) But I do have a few further questions, if you have the chance to answer them. I'll gladly fix the references, but when I started the edited, I found the article in short and long mode. This is the nature of this article having so many editors, I think. So, I divided the references into sfn where the work is multiply referenced across many different pages multiple times, and long form when the citation is a single reference, either a book with a page number or a journal. If the issues with the sfns are fixed, are you okay with this hybrid model?
You also put the "very long" tag in the article. I can definitely see that. You mentioned that creating an article on the sexuality of Frederick the Great may be a one way to shorten it. Some of the material could be moved over there, though I think it'd be up to other editors to clean it up.
Another may be moving some of the material on the First Partition of Poland to the First Partition of Poland article. The problem there is that this material, which is interesting and cited, is disproportionately focused on Prussia, and the existing article has a good article rating, that I wouldn't want to disrupt. Any suggestions? The two sections on the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War seem long at first glance, but seem less so once they are seen as an abstract of six hefty articles from the perspective of Frederick's life: Silesian Wars First Silesian War Second Silesian War] Third Silesian War War of Austrian Succession Seven Years' War that are already a condensation. What do you think? Finally, do you (or any of the other editors and watchers) have other suggestions on sections that could use cutting? Thanks again for all you've done with the article. Wtfiv ( talk) 06:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe:@ Wtfiv: I went ahead and started the condensing, mostly in regards to cutting content found in the Prussian Partition subarticle, I am aiming for it to be only 4 paragraphs maximum. I have a question for consensus though: is it really necessary to discuss the secret alliance between Russia and Prussia? It is barely a prelude. I want to keep it but if we really want to shorten this thing it may need to be canned from this article and moved to the Prussian Partition article. My most recent edit is my solution to this, so please tell me what you think. Chariotsacha ( talk) 14:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Wtfiv: Thank you for your birthday wishes Wtfiv! I agree with your additional sentence 100%, as its nice and direct, but I also do think I will add a passing remark about the fact the Katte affair possibly being of homosexual nature aswell, it wont damage length too terribly and seems like a detail that would really solidify the section and wouldn't cause article whiplash if you read Katte's article. Which clearly brings up these speculations. Chariotsacha ( talk) 03:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, as mentioned in the G.A. review we need to settle on using British English or American English, I am in favour of British English for the article as it's an article concerning Europe rather than the Americas, I need consensus from the other editors here though before diving in and changing the whole article into British spelling conventions, I am particularly interested in what Wtfiv and Buidhe think as they have been onboard this Frederick the Great revamp for a while. But of course, any consensus is welcome, let it be known though I am for British English. Chariotsacha ( talk) 14:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
If editors are good with the changes, I'd like to take Tim Riley's, the GA reviewer's, suggestion one step further: is Frederick II ready for a featured article review? If not, what do we have to do? Can we do it? Wtfiv ( talk) 02:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thinking about this article in terms of its potential as a featured article, I'd like to make two other possible changes:
I've made both changes mentioned above. The move required some modification of the images. Also, it left a dead space image-wise in policies, so I moved Camphausen's image to accompany administrative policies (It looks like Frederick is being stern, even though the image is a draft for an equestrian portrait.) At "Religion", I added an image of St. Hedwig's Cathedral. The photograph adds visual variety to the paintings, and I think emphasizes without words, aspects of Frederick's religious policies. I also did some minor fixes that probably should've been done in a separate edit. (formatting quotes in the sfn translations) The move of making military theory can easily be reverted if the consensus is not for it, but I'd request a discussion first before reverting. Wtfiv ( talk) 01:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm tempted to clean up the citations and sources as per the suggestion of our GA Reviewer Tom Riley. If I do, I'll be doing it piecemeal as it is a lot of work. (A few references at a time.) So for a while it will continue to look mixed. I'll keep the citations and references intact, but if anything, the Reference section will appear even more inconsistent until it gets near the end of the project. If anyone has concerns, please let me know Wtfiv ( talk) 21:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm also going through Further reading and deleting items Please feel free to put these back if you feel they are essential.
These two were deleted because they appear cover the same ground that the myriad accessible citations that in are in the article.
The following two were deleted because they are not accessible and appear more on military theory as influenced by Frederick rather than Frederick's biography itself.
I didn't delete Frederick the Great and His Officials and Frederick the Great of Prussia: Absolutism and Administration as their focus on Frederick on how Frederick functioned as an administrator may add insight about Frederick's management of Prussia beyond the article. After integrating Haworth 1904, Rose 1914, and Oleskiewicz 2012 into the article as citations,, and moving Oleskiewicz's score and recordings up, the last two items that now have a strikethrough also did not appear to add much to the many references this article already has.
This then left the German language works as the remaining items in "Further reading". But there may be editors committed to German language sources, so for now I only hid the text pending any discussions or concerns. I don't feel strongly one way or another. But, as can be seen, I lean toward leaving them out as it isn't clear they add much to English readers. If it the consensus is to keep them, they'll just need a properly labeled subsection. Either way, I figured it should be left open to discussion before making a final decision. Wtfiv ( talk) 06:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the hidden text with the German language "Further Reading" items today. Wtfiv ( talk) 02:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Changed the items in this section. I tried to keep the editors' choices, but removed works already cited in text. Also chose selected works in English. The first four of the Posthumous Works. Volumes 1-4 are all his memoirs, which together can be considered his History of my Times, his professional autobiography.
I added Volume 5 of Posthumous Works to give a sense of Frederick as a philosopher and satirist.
I also created links to his collected works and political correspondence to the excellent database at the via Universitätsbibliothek Trier. (By the way, the site is a bit of a hassle to navigate, but once a volume is selected, just click "text" in the upper right menu and its ready to read.)
I wanted to link to a sample of his poetry, as it was listed by an editor. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a selection of a decent translations. (If anybody know of one, maybe we could add it?). However, his poetry is available in the original French in five of the volumes of his linked collected works:
I think that these- in addition to the works already cited in the article give a good sense of Frederick the author. Wtfiv ( talk) 17:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The conversion of the references to sfn format is complete: the sea of blue has arrived. Though I'm sure there's more to be done, and changes from multiple editors will be forthcoming. Here's the results I'm seeing from this round of edits.
I marked the availability of fully accessible sources in a way I hope is consistent. I know that marking source availability is controversial, but I feel it serves the readers' and Wikipedia's interest in making material as accurate, verifiable, and accessible as possible. As always, I thank those who helped out! Wtfiv ( talk) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I've made most of the changes I mentioned in the above two second-level sections. I'm nominating this as a Featured Article. Let's see what happens! Wtfiv ( talk) 18:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed Wham2001 ( talk) 07:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)) The opening sentence is just bad and does not reflect his creative personality. She did not see West Prussia is a better link in the lead than Royal Prussia. The difference between king in and king of is not well explained. Kingdom's wealth sounds like a fairy tale and it is better to use finances. The words however and Prussia are repeated all the time. ( French people was a bad link and does not explain anything.) She deleted Königs Wusterhausen. What was not referenced is not untrue: as a child he did not want to play with tin soldiers, but rather with his older sister; on his birthday, he didn't get a rocking horse, but a regiment or a cannon as a present. The transverse flute seems to be new to her, etc. which means she does not the story of his youth and Berlin or Potsdam very well. As an Enlightened person, Frederick believed in free will, not the other way around, but he could not escape some Calvinist influences. That is what usually happens. I checked only two sections, but I suppose the article is full with unprecise information. Good luck. Taksen ( talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course, the article is always open to edits and improvement. I'm just not sure the ones you made accomplished that goal. If other editors feel otherwise, they'll probably let us know. Wtfiv ( talk) 08:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I made only a few changes and stick to my opening sentence. What is there is boring, not attractive at all. You wrote all these things are mentioned later on, but the lead should somehow reflect was comes later. His father thought he was feminine, did not like French language and the flute and his hair cut. It should be explained more in detail. Frederick's conflict could be important for many adolescents, look here.
Ich kann keinen effeminirten (verweichlichten) Kerl leiden, der sich schämt, nicht reiten und schießen kann, ... seine Haare wie ein Narr sich frisieret ... Zu anderen recht hoffärtig, recht bauernstolz ist, mit keinem Menschen spricht ... und mit dem Gesichte Grimassen macht, als wenn er ein Narr wäre, und in nichts meinen Willen tut, als mit der Force dazu angehalten; nichts aus Liebe, und er alles dazu nichts Lust hat, als seinem eigenen Kopfe folgen, sonsten alles nichts nütze ist. [Taksen 1] [Taksen 2]
According to MacDonogh this happened on 11 September 1728.
(In translation:) I can't stand an effeminate fellow who is ashamed, can't ride and can't shoot, ... styles his hair like a fool ... is quite arrogant towards others, quite proud of his peasantry, does not speak to anyone ... and makes faces as if he were a fool, and does not do my will in anything, but is urged to do so by force; nothing out of love, and he has no desire to do anything but follow his own head, otherwise everything is useless. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Not every sentence needs a ref, and those details explain better why he was in conflict with his father. I will not change anything here. Taksen ( talk) 09:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Taksen: For now, I reverted two of your three changes. I here's my reason:
I am not so interested in this style which means problems all the time and with someone who does not have a profile. Are you a lawyer? Taksen ( talk) 04:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The respectful letter to his father from 11 September 1728 was probably written in or after the visit to Dresden, where Frederick met Quantz and was satisfied to see another country.
Taksen (
talk)
05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The self-portrait of Frederick Wilhelm I was removed. Though interesting for his own biography, it would best go- if anywhere- in his own article. There was a long discussion about the photographs in this article. It is in the archives: Discussion on the images in Frederick II article. Wtfiv ( talk) 07:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The respectful letter to his father from 11 September 1728 was written after the visit to Dresden (during carnival likely in February), where Frederick had met Quantz and was satisfied to see another country. According to Mitford Frederick made in better impression than his father. At the end of the year Frederick made plans to flee from his father. Taksen ( talk) 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
IP user 68.13.172.49 ( talk): Please stop altering the wording of the lead section's discussion of Frederick's sexuality. The current wording reflects the consensus of many editors, who have attempted to accurately represent the scholarly consensus on this topic. If you feel that a different phrasing would better summarize what is known about this issue, a good place to propose your idea would be in the actively ongoing featured article candidacy page for this article, where all the details of its wording are being examined by many editors. Please discuss this matter before making any further changes. - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
As per banner, I merged the article "Tomb of Frederick the Great" and created a redirect for the "tomb" article. It looks like a transfer from German Wikipedia in 2006, and editing is light. The last one was last year adding the point about potatoes being put on the grave. I added one additional piece that was in the "tomb" article, and not here: the quote from Frederick II's will. It's now sourced in a footnote. Added a source on the potatoes on the grave, too. Wtfiv ( talk) 22:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the phrase He was the longest reigning monarch of the
House of Hohenzollern.
During the final reviews of the Today's Featured Article Review, it was pointed out that
Carol I of Romania is the longest reigning Hohenzollern, reigning two years longer than Frederick. We would add it back with the qualification Brandenburg-Prussia branch of the House of Hohenzollern, but that feels a bit clunky. And, we'd have to look for a source and find the right place to put it in the main text. My feeling is to keep it off. Frederick II still has a lot that he accomplished beyond reign longevity.
Wtfiv (
talk)
21:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen, I saw the addition of suggested readings. I think this may need a conversation, so I used WP:BRD. Does addition of another section which risks growing larger over time improvement the article, given that we just got this article to featured article status. I think it'd be good for interested editors to discuss if we need suggested readings. Suggested readings can be useful, but I also find the section problematic for the following reasons:
I'm not sure what the specialized topics add to the global article's focus. Again, it seems to me that if they are valuable they could be integrated into the specific issue within the article, combined with an attempt at making the citation verifiable. This strategy also implicitly provides a rationale why these works are worthwhile as further reading. It may indeed be a good way to go, but I think we need to discuss first. Wtfiv ( talk) 06:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Not trying to rub salt into old wounds, but after viewing the uncropped version of Ziesenis' portrait of Frederick article I can't help but feel that using it rather than the cropped version would do Frederick more justice. We see full body paintings in quite a few articles such as Frederick William I of Prussia, so I was thinking Frederick the Great would be no different, any thoughts? Chariotsacha ( talk) 19:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
He does look dapper. Going back to the Great Elector, the preference for the image of Prussian ruling nobles in the infobox is a Wikipedia toss up. Though face-focused portraits dominate once photography takes over:
My main concern is if you choose the more full-body portrait it would lead to another edit flurry with the Graf and Camphausen face-focused works rotating in? Hopefully, other editors will weigh in too. (Maybe you can ping some of the more active editors for their opinion?) In lieu of any strong opinions about which version to use, I'll trust your judgement. Wtfiv ( talk) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Peleio Aquiles added another image to the file. It is was an image of Hans Hermann von Katte. There are already a lot of images on this page, all directly related to Frederick II. I'm not sure why an image of Katte should be in the article rather than someone like Voltaire, who had a much more in-depth relationship with Frederick, or his brother Henry, who was his intimate. For now, the image has been removed pending discussion. The Katte image is still available to people who click the Katte link. but if it needs to in this article too, it may need to be discussed. Wtfiv ( talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The section dealing with his musical endeavors needs some cleaning up. It even directly contradicts info in the Quantz article, calling Quantz his "music tutor in his youth," however:
The Queen of Prussia was impressed and wanted to hire him for her son. Though August II refused, he allowed Quantz to travel to Berlin and Bayreuth twice a year. [From the Quantz article]
Two lessons a year hardly makes him his music tutor, and besides what is more important is Quantz joining Frederick II's court in 1741 as composer, flute teacher, and flute maker and staying until his death over 30 years later. Somehow that is glossed over.
It also means that C.P.E. Bach's and Quantz' tenures overlapped at court for over 25 years, and it seems a shame we have no comments about how the two extremely renowned musicians and composers worked and collaborated together, or if they didn't get along. It would be similar to if Liszt and Paganini were both hired by the Austrian Emperor in their day, both great advancers of their respective techniques, and famous all over Europe.
I hope someone will decide to look this up, but in the meantime I'm considering editing the note about Quantz to "occasional music tutor in his youth, and later court composer, flute teacher, and flute maker." Deliusfan ( talk) 00:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Well done, that is much clearer. And I do hope as well that an article on Frederick's court can be written; he clearly is a Renaissance man cut from the same cloth as France's Louis XIV; what Louis did for ballet and opera as an aspiring dancer, himself, Frederick did for instrumental music and literature. Deliusfan ( talk) 23:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Why isn't this portrait used? Contemporaries found it to resemble him the most. For this reason it is the most used one in other Wikipedia editions as well, including the German Wikipedia. Synotia ( talk) 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Kunst-Theodor, the new section you added "Fake Portraits" moves away from discussing the life of Frederick the Great, which is the focus of this article, so I reverted it. The information is interesting the section you added "Fake Portraits" was interesting, but it mand discusses representations of Frederick, not his life. It seems like it could go better into a new spin-off article on how he has been represented or memorialized. Wtfiv ( talk) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Kunst-Theodor, I see that material on the portraits was put into the article even though a new article was created to address the issue there. I removed the new information again for now. When readying this for featured article status, information about likenesses do not seem appropriate about an article centered on Frederick's life. I will ping others who helped work on this article to get it to Featured Article status. Perhaps they can weigh in on whether information about Frederick's portraits are appropriate to this article: Bryanrutherford0, Chariotsacha, Buidhe, Rjensen. And, of course, the perspective of any other interested editors is welcome! Wtfiv ( talk) 02:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied and took a look at how the same problem is handled in other Wikipedia articles:
Query: For what reason has my short addition to the Architecture and the fine arts section been removed? As you can see from the examples above, most other featured Wikipedia articles on famous people include brief information on the portraits, even if there are main articles on the portraits. What’s so different with this article on Frederick the Great that the following five additional sentences have been removed:
Furthermore, it may even be asked whether the Ziesenis portrait in the info box should be replaced by an image of the death mask. Kunst-Theodor ( talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I don't know what I did that broke it, but I seem to have made a negative in the change " Frederick the Great#Inheritance" section map template. Does anyone have any idea what the problem is? — DocWatson42 ( talk) 11:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is a request for a discussion to get a sense of consensus, and to see if there is a possible of a community effort.
Frederick II is clearly a major, controversial figure, and the history of this webpage clearly shows that. However, the page has 412 watchers, of which I'm willing to bet nearly 100 are active and vigilant. There seems to be a kind of entente , so the page also seems to have achieved a somewhat precarious stability that has done a fair job at this point of his limitations with his strengths. This article was last reviewed in 2006, and though there is lots of new information and excellent citations, it still has a feeling of a B quality article.
I think one major reason is the citations, which I've been working on. I've made a lot of changes. Hopefully, they are relatively uncontroversial. But, I think I'm now moving into more difficult terrain, and want to tread carefully, if at all.
My goal is to ensure that when at all possible, references can be checked. I think my procedure is pretty standard:
But, what's the consensus about the unlinked citations in French, German and Polish? Not only they are almost inaccessible, but even if accessed the non-speaker would be challenged to translate the physical text. If the citation matches the prose, many of them seem to make great points. I'm just unsure they serve as citations when the become almost impossible to verify, particularly to someone outside of the country or without access to above-average academic resources.
My thought is that cleaning up the citations for English readers would be step in improving the article's quality. And would lead to making the secondary material more accessible. Again, I'm not particularly interested at making major changes in the article's prose; even more so, I'm not interested in triggering an edit war. Is attempting to clean up the citations worthwhile, even if it means swapping out existing ones? Or, finding equivalent English-speaking sources, or at least, foreign-language sources with links to the content?
Does anyone else think this is a project worth tackling? If so, is anyone else interested in helping out? Or, is Frederick resting on such a fine balance of consensus that it's best to leave him- like his namesake Frederick Barbarossa- slumbering undisturbed beneath his mountain of bytes (136,000+)? How do other feel? Wtfiv ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've done a first pass through the English language sources, trying to get as many accessible ones as I could find, templating the untemplated, linking the unlinked (when possible), and updating and archiving links what I could. Adding some new sources discovered along the way of trying to confirm. I'm going to start culling the foreign language sources. I'll try and find links to them. If I can find them, I'll keep them. but will cull out unlinked foreign sources, which may require changes to prose if its solely supported by only an unliked foreign language source. Here it goes...any help appreciated...
Wtfiv (
talk)
18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Done with most foreign-language sources. Still a handful left. Also, I would like to move all references from lead to main text. Any concerns? Some linked foreign sources remain. My solution so far is to delete texts that require sustained reading in foreign language. (Can be put in further reading.) And to link and translate relevant texts making brief texts, unless text is on a webpage that can be machine translated in browser. That way non-speakers of language could verify source. This addresses issue in archives about some unlinked languages (e.g. French, German) being privileged over others (e.g., Polish). This solution may not work, but it attempts to provide equity and verifiability. One can't stop edit wars in the future, but if the article is going to get foreign language sources, at least there's a precedence for what stays and what goes. (Assuming, of course, this solution is even acceptable) Wtfiv ( talk) 05:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I think I'm done with my major pass through the citations and some work on the prose (mainly reorganization for flow, reducing some duplications, rewording based on references, adding points made by references discovered during verification). I'm not sure if Frederick is ready beyond B quality yet, or not, but hopefully, these edits help him on his way. Wtfiv ( talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I moved this discussion from Rjensen's talk page to here for two reasons. Just so my multiple edits don't disrupt somebody else's page, and second, I realize I'd like to get any other opinions as I move through the editing process of this article, which as I mentioned has many watchers.
@ Rjensen: I saw you reverted my own edits on my own work. All the links I removed were put in solely by me in the past couple of days (e.g., 21:37, 25 February 2021). I didn't take out anybody else's links. (In fact, all I've been doing is trying to linking uncited material.) I figured linking to archive.org's individual pages for items in copyright would just muck things up. The issue is not copyright, but link stability If you think keeping the convenience of the page links I put in is indeed worth the possibility of having them break later.
Right now archive.org's situation with borrowing is unstable. But when I saw the situation with Anderson's Crucible of War, which is no longer accessible, I stopped linking and researched why it disappeared. It's because the publisher or Anderson revoked archive.org's right to leave it. This made me realize that many of the links I created have a high risk of breaking. I figure that I'd go with the safe and stable ones for now: out of archive.org out of copyright (as well as Google links). However, readers can easily go to archive.org for now, "borrow" the book, and scroll to the page. If access is denied later, there's not broken links.
For now, I'll move forward on the proposed project outlined without unreverting your reversion of my edit which was effectively reverting my own previous edits. Let's discuss to decide which version is best for this article.
Also, if you think my editing of the article in the context of trying to clean up the citations are too intrusive, please let me know too. Thanks! Wtfiv ( talk) 00:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The multiple references in this article make it a bit clunky to edit and to track all the references. Separating the references may make the article a bit more transparent and easier to edit. Would it be okay to move the references into a list, or is the consensus to leave them as is? Wtfiv ( talk) 21:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I've just finished an attempt to add accessible (linked to sources) citations for almost every major claim made, while respecting the core structure of the article as it has evolved over the years. I did remove sentences for which citations could not be found, modified many sentences to align with the citations, and substantially changed a few sections I found were problematic (i.e., narrative flow or claims did not back the consensus of sources I used). I also tried to annotate the reason for most major changes in the history so concerned editors know why a change was made and frequently used multiple sources to reduce reliance on one biographer. Thanks to any watchers of this article who were actually tracking the changes. I appreciate your patience and, to those of you who offered it, your help. Hopefully, the overall changes have made this article a bit stronger. Wtfiv ( talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe: I very much appreciate your edits that shorten the material. I think every edit you made improved the article! (I've been relatively conservative on cutting material from other editors) But I do have a few further questions, if you have the chance to answer them. I'll gladly fix the references, but when I started the edited, I found the article in short and long mode. This is the nature of this article having so many editors, I think. So, I divided the references into sfn where the work is multiply referenced across many different pages multiple times, and long form when the citation is a single reference, either a book with a page number or a journal. If the issues with the sfns are fixed, are you okay with this hybrid model?
You also put the "very long" tag in the article. I can definitely see that. You mentioned that creating an article on the sexuality of Frederick the Great may be a one way to shorten it. Some of the material could be moved over there, though I think it'd be up to other editors to clean it up.
Another may be moving some of the material on the First Partition of Poland to the First Partition of Poland article. The problem there is that this material, which is interesting and cited, is disproportionately focused on Prussia, and the existing article has a good article rating, that I wouldn't want to disrupt. Any suggestions? The two sections on the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War seem long at first glance, but seem less so once they are seen as an abstract of six hefty articles from the perspective of Frederick's life: Silesian Wars First Silesian War Second Silesian War] Third Silesian War War of Austrian Succession Seven Years' War that are already a condensation. What do you think? Finally, do you (or any of the other editors and watchers) have other suggestions on sections that could use cutting? Thanks again for all you've done with the article. Wtfiv ( talk) 06:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe:@ Wtfiv: I went ahead and started the condensing, mostly in regards to cutting content found in the Prussian Partition subarticle, I am aiming for it to be only 4 paragraphs maximum. I have a question for consensus though: is it really necessary to discuss the secret alliance between Russia and Prussia? It is barely a prelude. I want to keep it but if we really want to shorten this thing it may need to be canned from this article and moved to the Prussian Partition article. My most recent edit is my solution to this, so please tell me what you think. Chariotsacha ( talk) 14:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Wtfiv: Thank you for your birthday wishes Wtfiv! I agree with your additional sentence 100%, as its nice and direct, but I also do think I will add a passing remark about the fact the Katte affair possibly being of homosexual nature aswell, it wont damage length too terribly and seems like a detail that would really solidify the section and wouldn't cause article whiplash if you read Katte's article. Which clearly brings up these speculations. Chariotsacha ( talk) 03:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, as mentioned in the G.A. review we need to settle on using British English or American English, I am in favour of British English for the article as it's an article concerning Europe rather than the Americas, I need consensus from the other editors here though before diving in and changing the whole article into British spelling conventions, I am particularly interested in what Wtfiv and Buidhe think as they have been onboard this Frederick the Great revamp for a while. But of course, any consensus is welcome, let it be known though I am for British English. Chariotsacha ( talk) 14:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
If editors are good with the changes, I'd like to take Tim Riley's, the GA reviewer's, suggestion one step further: is Frederick II ready for a featured article review? If not, what do we have to do? Can we do it? Wtfiv ( talk) 02:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thinking about this article in terms of its potential as a featured article, I'd like to make two other possible changes:
I've made both changes mentioned above. The move required some modification of the images. Also, it left a dead space image-wise in policies, so I moved Camphausen's image to accompany administrative policies (It looks like Frederick is being stern, even though the image is a draft for an equestrian portrait.) At "Religion", I added an image of St. Hedwig's Cathedral. The photograph adds visual variety to the paintings, and I think emphasizes without words, aspects of Frederick's religious policies. I also did some minor fixes that probably should've been done in a separate edit. (formatting quotes in the sfn translations) The move of making military theory can easily be reverted if the consensus is not for it, but I'd request a discussion first before reverting. Wtfiv ( talk) 01:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm tempted to clean up the citations and sources as per the suggestion of our GA Reviewer Tom Riley. If I do, I'll be doing it piecemeal as it is a lot of work. (A few references at a time.) So for a while it will continue to look mixed. I'll keep the citations and references intact, but if anything, the Reference section will appear even more inconsistent until it gets near the end of the project. If anyone has concerns, please let me know Wtfiv ( talk) 21:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm also going through Further reading and deleting items Please feel free to put these back if you feel they are essential.
These two were deleted because they appear cover the same ground that the myriad accessible citations that in are in the article.
The following two were deleted because they are not accessible and appear more on military theory as influenced by Frederick rather than Frederick's biography itself.
I didn't delete Frederick the Great and His Officials and Frederick the Great of Prussia: Absolutism and Administration as their focus on Frederick on how Frederick functioned as an administrator may add insight about Frederick's management of Prussia beyond the article. After integrating Haworth 1904, Rose 1914, and Oleskiewicz 2012 into the article as citations,, and moving Oleskiewicz's score and recordings up, the last two items that now have a strikethrough also did not appear to add much to the many references this article already has.
This then left the German language works as the remaining items in "Further reading". But there may be editors committed to German language sources, so for now I only hid the text pending any discussions or concerns. I don't feel strongly one way or another. But, as can be seen, I lean toward leaving them out as it isn't clear they add much to English readers. If it the consensus is to keep them, they'll just need a properly labeled subsection. Either way, I figured it should be left open to discussion before making a final decision. Wtfiv ( talk) 06:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the hidden text with the German language "Further Reading" items today. Wtfiv ( talk) 02:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Changed the items in this section. I tried to keep the editors' choices, but removed works already cited in text. Also chose selected works in English. The first four of the Posthumous Works. Volumes 1-4 are all his memoirs, which together can be considered his History of my Times, his professional autobiography.
I added Volume 5 of Posthumous Works to give a sense of Frederick as a philosopher and satirist.
I also created links to his collected works and political correspondence to the excellent database at the via Universitätsbibliothek Trier. (By the way, the site is a bit of a hassle to navigate, but once a volume is selected, just click "text" in the upper right menu and its ready to read.)
I wanted to link to a sample of his poetry, as it was listed by an editor. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a selection of a decent translations. (If anybody know of one, maybe we could add it?). However, his poetry is available in the original French in five of the volumes of his linked collected works:
I think that these- in addition to the works already cited in the article give a good sense of Frederick the author. Wtfiv ( talk) 17:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The conversion of the references to sfn format is complete: the sea of blue has arrived. Though I'm sure there's more to be done, and changes from multiple editors will be forthcoming. Here's the results I'm seeing from this round of edits.
I marked the availability of fully accessible sources in a way I hope is consistent. I know that marking source availability is controversial, but I feel it serves the readers' and Wikipedia's interest in making material as accurate, verifiable, and accessible as possible. As always, I thank those who helped out! Wtfiv ( talk) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I've made most of the changes I mentioned in the above two second-level sections. I'm nominating this as a Featured Article. Let's see what happens! Wtfiv ( talk) 18:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed Wham2001 ( talk) 07:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)) The opening sentence is just bad and does not reflect his creative personality. She did not see West Prussia is a better link in the lead than Royal Prussia. The difference between king in and king of is not well explained. Kingdom's wealth sounds like a fairy tale and it is better to use finances. The words however and Prussia are repeated all the time. ( French people was a bad link and does not explain anything.) She deleted Königs Wusterhausen. What was not referenced is not untrue: as a child he did not want to play with tin soldiers, but rather with his older sister; on his birthday, he didn't get a rocking horse, but a regiment or a cannon as a present. The transverse flute seems to be new to her, etc. which means she does not the story of his youth and Berlin or Potsdam very well. As an Enlightened person, Frederick believed in free will, not the other way around, but he could not escape some Calvinist influences. That is what usually happens. I checked only two sections, but I suppose the article is full with unprecise information. Good luck. Taksen ( talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course, the article is always open to edits and improvement. I'm just not sure the ones you made accomplished that goal. If other editors feel otherwise, they'll probably let us know. Wtfiv ( talk) 08:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I made only a few changes and stick to my opening sentence. What is there is boring, not attractive at all. You wrote all these things are mentioned later on, but the lead should somehow reflect was comes later. His father thought he was feminine, did not like French language and the flute and his hair cut. It should be explained more in detail. Frederick's conflict could be important for many adolescents, look here.
Ich kann keinen effeminirten (verweichlichten) Kerl leiden, der sich schämt, nicht reiten und schießen kann, ... seine Haare wie ein Narr sich frisieret ... Zu anderen recht hoffärtig, recht bauernstolz ist, mit keinem Menschen spricht ... und mit dem Gesichte Grimassen macht, als wenn er ein Narr wäre, und in nichts meinen Willen tut, als mit der Force dazu angehalten; nichts aus Liebe, und er alles dazu nichts Lust hat, als seinem eigenen Kopfe folgen, sonsten alles nichts nütze ist. [Taksen 1] [Taksen 2]
According to MacDonogh this happened on 11 September 1728.
(In translation:) I can't stand an effeminate fellow who is ashamed, can't ride and can't shoot, ... styles his hair like a fool ... is quite arrogant towards others, quite proud of his peasantry, does not speak to anyone ... and makes faces as if he were a fool, and does not do my will in anything, but is urged to do so by force; nothing out of love, and he has no desire to do anything but follow his own head, otherwise everything is useless. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Not every sentence needs a ref, and those details explain better why he was in conflict with his father. I will not change anything here. Taksen ( talk) 09:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Taksen: For now, I reverted two of your three changes. I here's my reason:
I am not so interested in this style which means problems all the time and with someone who does not have a profile. Are you a lawyer? Taksen ( talk) 04:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The respectful letter to his father from 11 September 1728 was probably written in or after the visit to Dresden, where Frederick met Quantz and was satisfied to see another country.
Taksen (
talk)
05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The self-portrait of Frederick Wilhelm I was removed. Though interesting for his own biography, it would best go- if anywhere- in his own article. There was a long discussion about the photographs in this article. It is in the archives: Discussion on the images in Frederick II article. Wtfiv ( talk) 07:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The respectful letter to his father from 11 September 1728 was written after the visit to Dresden (during carnival likely in February), where Frederick had met Quantz and was satisfied to see another country. According to Mitford Frederick made in better impression than his father. At the end of the year Frederick made plans to flee from his father. Taksen ( talk) 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
IP user 68.13.172.49 ( talk): Please stop altering the wording of the lead section's discussion of Frederick's sexuality. The current wording reflects the consensus of many editors, who have attempted to accurately represent the scholarly consensus on this topic. If you feel that a different phrasing would better summarize what is known about this issue, a good place to propose your idea would be in the actively ongoing featured article candidacy page for this article, where all the details of its wording are being examined by many editors. Please discuss this matter before making any further changes. - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
As per banner, I merged the article "Tomb of Frederick the Great" and created a redirect for the "tomb" article. It looks like a transfer from German Wikipedia in 2006, and editing is light. The last one was last year adding the point about potatoes being put on the grave. I added one additional piece that was in the "tomb" article, and not here: the quote from Frederick II's will. It's now sourced in a footnote. Added a source on the potatoes on the grave, too. Wtfiv ( talk) 22:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted the phrase He was the longest reigning monarch of the
House of Hohenzollern.
During the final reviews of the Today's Featured Article Review, it was pointed out that
Carol I of Romania is the longest reigning Hohenzollern, reigning two years longer than Frederick. We would add it back with the qualification Brandenburg-Prussia branch of the House of Hohenzollern, but that feels a bit clunky. And, we'd have to look for a source and find the right place to put it in the main text. My feeling is to keep it off. Frederick II still has a lot that he accomplished beyond reign longevity.
Wtfiv (
talk)
21:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen, I saw the addition of suggested readings. I think this may need a conversation, so I used WP:BRD. Does addition of another section which risks growing larger over time improvement the article, given that we just got this article to featured article status. I think it'd be good for interested editors to discuss if we need suggested readings. Suggested readings can be useful, but I also find the section problematic for the following reasons:
I'm not sure what the specialized topics add to the global article's focus. Again, it seems to me that if they are valuable they could be integrated into the specific issue within the article, combined with an attempt at making the citation verifiable. This strategy also implicitly provides a rationale why these works are worthwhile as further reading. It may indeed be a good way to go, but I think we need to discuss first. Wtfiv ( talk) 06:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Not trying to rub salt into old wounds, but after viewing the uncropped version of Ziesenis' portrait of Frederick article I can't help but feel that using it rather than the cropped version would do Frederick more justice. We see full body paintings in quite a few articles such as Frederick William I of Prussia, so I was thinking Frederick the Great would be no different, any thoughts? Chariotsacha ( talk) 19:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
He does look dapper. Going back to the Great Elector, the preference for the image of Prussian ruling nobles in the infobox is a Wikipedia toss up. Though face-focused portraits dominate once photography takes over:
My main concern is if you choose the more full-body portrait it would lead to another edit flurry with the Graf and Camphausen face-focused works rotating in? Hopefully, other editors will weigh in too. (Maybe you can ping some of the more active editors for their opinion?) In lieu of any strong opinions about which version to use, I'll trust your judgement. Wtfiv ( talk) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Peleio Aquiles added another image to the file. It is was an image of Hans Hermann von Katte. There are already a lot of images on this page, all directly related to Frederick II. I'm not sure why an image of Katte should be in the article rather than someone like Voltaire, who had a much more in-depth relationship with Frederick, or his brother Henry, who was his intimate. For now, the image has been removed pending discussion. The Katte image is still available to people who click the Katte link. but if it needs to in this article too, it may need to be discussed. Wtfiv ( talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The section dealing with his musical endeavors needs some cleaning up. It even directly contradicts info in the Quantz article, calling Quantz his "music tutor in his youth," however:
The Queen of Prussia was impressed and wanted to hire him for her son. Though August II refused, he allowed Quantz to travel to Berlin and Bayreuth twice a year. [From the Quantz article]
Two lessons a year hardly makes him his music tutor, and besides what is more important is Quantz joining Frederick II's court in 1741 as composer, flute teacher, and flute maker and staying until his death over 30 years later. Somehow that is glossed over.
It also means that C.P.E. Bach's and Quantz' tenures overlapped at court for over 25 years, and it seems a shame we have no comments about how the two extremely renowned musicians and composers worked and collaborated together, or if they didn't get along. It would be similar to if Liszt and Paganini were both hired by the Austrian Emperor in their day, both great advancers of their respective techniques, and famous all over Europe.
I hope someone will decide to look this up, but in the meantime I'm considering editing the note about Quantz to "occasional music tutor in his youth, and later court composer, flute teacher, and flute maker." Deliusfan ( talk) 00:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Well done, that is much clearer. And I do hope as well that an article on Frederick's court can be written; he clearly is a Renaissance man cut from the same cloth as France's Louis XIV; what Louis did for ballet and opera as an aspiring dancer, himself, Frederick did for instrumental music and literature. Deliusfan ( talk) 23:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Why isn't this portrait used? Contemporaries found it to resemble him the most. For this reason it is the most used one in other Wikipedia editions as well, including the German Wikipedia. Synotia ( talk) 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Kunst-Theodor, the new section you added "Fake Portraits" moves away from discussing the life of Frederick the Great, which is the focus of this article, so I reverted it. The information is interesting the section you added "Fake Portraits" was interesting, but it mand discusses representations of Frederick, not his life. It seems like it could go better into a new spin-off article on how he has been represented or memorialized. Wtfiv ( talk) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Kunst-Theodor, I see that material on the portraits was put into the article even though a new article was created to address the issue there. I removed the new information again for now. When readying this for featured article status, information about likenesses do not seem appropriate about an article centered on Frederick's life. I will ping others who helped work on this article to get it to Featured Article status. Perhaps they can weigh in on whether information about Frederick's portraits are appropriate to this article: Bryanrutherford0, Chariotsacha, Buidhe, Rjensen. And, of course, the perspective of any other interested editors is welcome! Wtfiv ( talk) 02:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied and took a look at how the same problem is handled in other Wikipedia articles:
Query: For what reason has my short addition to the Architecture and the fine arts section been removed? As you can see from the examples above, most other featured Wikipedia articles on famous people include brief information on the portraits, even if there are main articles on the portraits. What’s so different with this article on Frederick the Great that the following five additional sentences have been removed:
Furthermore, it may even be asked whether the Ziesenis portrait in the info box should be replaced by an image of the death mask. Kunst-Theodor ( talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I don't know what I did that broke it, but I seem to have made a negative in the change " Frederick the Great#Inheritance" section map template. Does anyone have any idea what the problem is? — DocWatson42 ( talk) 11:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)