Klemens von Metternich has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 15, 2017, and June 11, 2017. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Klemens von Metternich was split to Historical assessment of Klemens von Metternich on 7 January 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
where did You got the "Nepomuk"? Ilja Lorek 18:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There's not even one source listed for all this stuff... that's a problem. Nrbelex ( talk) 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The article should mention Metternich's primary political principles. He accepted deception as a legitimate tool of state. He acted pragmatically rather than on moral or ethical principles. And he practiced engaging other nation diplomatically, playing one off against the other for the purpose achieving a balance of power. Kissinger's studies of Metternich brought these principles into modern usage and shaped recent history. 70.162.78.92 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Steve Wolfer
I am surprised that the article in no way 'demonises' him for the censorship within Vienna, that he was at least partly responsible for. The article on Grillparzer, says "Then came the Revolution which struck off the intellectual fetters under which Grillparzer and his contemporaries had groaned in Austria, but the liberation came too late for him."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by J27325 ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If anything makes an article lose its credibility in the eyes of a critical reader, it is the inability to place an apostrophe in the right place. OK, we can all make mistakes, and maybe this is a just a minor mistyping. Or perhaps the author just does not understand how apostrophes work ... and if that is the case, what else does he not understand? The word "committee's" in the last paragraph on Post-Napoleonic Europe is a plural ... no apostrophe needed (Harry Goldsmith)
Tried editing the first section (and have removed text like 'your gay') but it is very stilted as if translated. Needs a total rewrite by someone who knows the period. rsloch 00:55, 10 June 2006 (GMT)
Should have been 'you're gay', right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J27325 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Link 1 ( http://www.h-net.org/~habsweb/sourcetexts/censor.htm) does not work.
I have just done some editing and formatting. I have also indicated the many parts where it needs sources, although there are a few common-knowledge things I have let pass. This one needs major work, and is essential as a link between post Napoleonic Europe and WWI. I'll try to do some work, but I have yet to find sources. Chimba 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I needed to look up where this guy- Prince Metternich was born and that information is not even in this article! It just says he was born in Austria- that doesn't help.
68.18.162.224 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on making the article completely unreadable by adding fact tags to every sentence. -- 76.188.161.254 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the big fat one at the top of the page is enough, we know up front that the article in unsourced. Adding a "citation needed" tag to every single sentence is unnecessary and just renders it garbled and unreadable. I think we should remove most of them. 83.11.3.17 11:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the discussion pagedon't seem to work. Therefore, I would humbly suggest, the David Thomson's classic Europe Since Napolean becomes a reference (as well as an avid read). [P.S. Little bro', ain't it, you found my original purchase...?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy Thoughts ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
In the intro, what is "entrepaneuer?" Is this a misspelling of "entrepreneur?" If so, I can't understand what is meant by the sentence, "He was the archetypal entrepaneuer [sic] practitioner of 19th-century diplomatic realism, being deeply rooted in the postulates of the balance of power."-- 68.46.187.78 ( talk) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich is a horrible title. We should never put different languages together like that ("Prince von"). The old title Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, was basically fine, even if it didn't clarify that he was Fürst rather than merely Prinz. Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich would be horrible as well. Or we could just do Klemens Wenzel von Metternich (which is more or less what we do with Otto von Bismarck). At any rate the English "Prince" and the German "von" used in the same phrase is just awful. john k ( talk) 06:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. john k ( talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich →
Klemens von Metternich — By far the most commonly used name for him. Compare
Otto von Bismarck, whose situation is similar. We don't have any explicit rules about using titles with German nobility, but in my opinion we should go very light on using their noble titles in the article title, because these simply aren't used very much.
john k (
talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.All right, I've moved the other article to "Richard von Metternich"; hopefully an admin will be along to move this one similarly.-- Kotniski ( talk) 15:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm admittedly judging this with all the historical expertise of a classical musician, but I was surprised to read through this article about a historical figure whose name among Viennese is still synonymous with political repression and censorship, and find almost no neutral, well-sourced mention of criticism against him. Rather, it reads like a poorly-sourced hagiography of a great man who was long misunderstood by liberals. Any mention of the uglier aspects of his rule is written in a loaded, "some misguided people have said..." style, again without citations. My first impression was that the article has been hijacked by some conservative partisan who is a fan of Henry Kissinger, but the article history shows a different state of affairs; most of the skewed material was added gradually by anonymous IP addresses.
I do not know the literature about Metternich, and only know what I've read in biographies of Beethoven and Schubert, but then again, there isn't much evidence that the authors of the fawning "Minister of State" and "Legacy" sections knew the literature either. I seriously doubt that these aspects have not been mentioned by good historians of the period.
I notice that there's been a neutrality tag in place for the last two years. Is there no one knowledgeable of the historical literature who can fix these glaring issues? If not, I can personally translate some of the material from German wikipedia, which seems much more neutrally-written. Junggai ( talk) 09:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This guy was German and even called himself a German Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 ( talk) 03:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. I just thought I'd make a note that this article is one of my WP:Wikicup targets for this year. I have, in my possession, a biography of Metternich by Alan Plamer, which I am first going to go through meticulously to expand the article to a decent length. The next stage will be to layer another other books I can get hold of. After that, I will finish off with what I can glean from Google-Books sources, before putting it through a GA.
That much is certain. In later rounds, when I have more time, it would also be nice to get the article to featured status. But that's a little way off. In the meantime and beyond, any help with the article - if only copyediting and flagging up dubious/misleading sentences - would be much appreciated. Regards, - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi
During the copyedit a few thing came to light that may need attention:
A very good article, well written and informative. It is a little heavy going, perhaps some of the paragraphs could be split into smaller ones?
I would definitely consider putting it up for a GA nomination, if not FA? Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mykleavens ( talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I've so far checked the history of and discussions about the article and, as it seems to be stable at present, I'm happy to review it. Metternich is a historical figure I've always found interesting. Given the size of the article, it will take time and I may decide to present interim reports on selected sections. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I was about to fail the article immediately after first reading it on 4/5 June but, by the time I had written up my report, Jarry1250 started revising the lead which was then the weak point of the article and my main cause for concern. I decided to set the review aside for the time being until the new work had been completed and intended to read the article again yesterday (11 June) but a further set of inputs were being made.
I will say here that I expect the lead to be a well-written summary of the whole article, especially given its great length. Among the topics I expect to see, in both lead and article, are:
Prior to recent updates the article was not well-written and contained what I consider to be unnecessary verbiage, some of it apparently copied direct from the sort of text book whose author delights in throwing the dictionary at his readers. A maxim here is to keep language simple so that the article flows and the reader does not have to stop every couple of sentences to ask "what does this mean?" I also spotted examples of terminology that would fail WP:WTW.
I haven't read the article again since the recent revisions began and will place the review on hold for the time being to allow the work to continue. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The article fails the GA review for the following reasons based on the GA criteria. It has been nominated too soon having not been properly copyedited and with the scope still undefined. The main problem is its length. It needs to be converted into a true summary of the major topics I outlined above with child articles created per most if not all of these key topics. I would advise that you follow the example of Winston Churchill and others that have been approached in this way. The relevant GA criteria are:
well-written:
broad in its coverage:
stable – – no, it is not stable in that it was nominated before being ready and a lot of work has been done and is continuing to be done which effectively prevents a thorough review
I regret, therefore, that I must fail the article for GA. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 19:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this article is a vessel for proponents of liberal ideas to attack conservative ideas. Don't we have enough of those on Wikipedia already? -- 24.185.64.42 ( talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DCI ( talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I plan on reviewing this article within the coming week. DCI talk 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
My major concern is the first paragraph of Historical assessment. I understand that the comments in this paragraph are supposed to be from the point of view of an unfavourable historian, but unquoted phrases describing a "pointless" struggle and "a more enlightened chancellor" do not sound acceptable here on Wikipedia.
This article is well-written and, with the exception of the errors outlined above, is ready to be listed as GA. In order to make A-class or FA, corrections will need to be made around the article, again as listed above, but I am ready to pass this as soon as my major concern is addressed.
The lead contains this sentence:
"His decision to oppose Russian imperialism is also seen as a good one."
By whom? For what reasons?
I think this sentence needs to be removed but would like to solicit opinion on it.
The next sentence - "His detractors describe him as a bore who stuck to ill-thought out conservative principles only out of vanity and a sense of infallibility." - is hardly any better, sounding like an editorial. Any thoughts on it? Bazuz ( talk) 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire,
hmm...I would say that the Holy Roman Empire did not have Foreign Ministers, and that the Austrian Empire was not its successor state. The Empire of Austria - like the Kingdom of Prussia, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Kingdom of Saxony, the Kingdom of Bavaria, etc. - was just one of the several successor states of the Holy Roman Empire. It was not its successor state. -- Lubiesque ( talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
of course it was it main successor state since it was the emperors "Hausmacht". According to the "translatio imperii" the imperial honor, Franz II had, couldnt be taken from him and he was the founder of the Austrian Empire, so the imperial honor got transferred to Austria....thats not a matter of region but of imperial honor. Austria was "the" mainpower within the HRE for centuries, so you can call it a successor state. The German Empire the Prussians created in 1871 on the other hand had nothing to do with the HRE. Eromae ( talk) 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The word "german" could be misunderstood here. He was not politician in or of Germany, he was politician in the Holy Roman Empire and in the Empire of Austria. Since "german" was even linked to the article of nowadays federal republic of germany, I deleted the link and the whole word - it could be misunderstood. he was a politician who worked for the house of habsburg: so he worked for austria and during the time, the habsburgs were roman emperors he worked for them in the Holy Roman Emperor. This has nothing to do with nowadays germany. I think "was a politician and statesman of Rhenish extraction and one of the most important diplomats of his era, serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire," is a good and more correct sentnce. Eromae ( talk) 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Since he died in 1859, there must be several photos of him somewhere. Ericl ( talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
There is presently only a single citation in a lengthy and detailed lead (this for his dates of birth/death). Probably much of this is sourced in the main text—for the determined reader. It seems awfully light to have basically no direct citations in the lead itself. — MaxEnt 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This page kind of quickly skims over Metternich's reaction to his death. I bring this up because I was personally curious about it, and found a brief mention in Metternich by Sandeman (pg 185):
"Early in the autumn of 1822 Castlereagh committed suicide, so that all hope of his attendance at the coming Congress was ended. Metternich was much distressed. Castlereagh had in many ways agreed with his views and had often proved a good ally, especially in regard to the Eastern Question. 'He had learnt to understand me,' wrote Metternich, 'it will be years before another reaches the same stage of confidence.'"
I think it might be worth including maybe one line of text that it was personally distressing to him. Delukiel ( talk) 12:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Klemens von Metternich has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 15, 2017, and June 11, 2017. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Klemens von Metternich was split to Historical assessment of Klemens von Metternich on 7 January 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
where did You got the "Nepomuk"? Ilja Lorek 18:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There's not even one source listed for all this stuff... that's a problem. Nrbelex ( talk) 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The article should mention Metternich's primary political principles. He accepted deception as a legitimate tool of state. He acted pragmatically rather than on moral or ethical principles. And he practiced engaging other nation diplomatically, playing one off against the other for the purpose achieving a balance of power. Kissinger's studies of Metternich brought these principles into modern usage and shaped recent history. 70.162.78.92 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Steve Wolfer
I am surprised that the article in no way 'demonises' him for the censorship within Vienna, that he was at least partly responsible for. The article on Grillparzer, says "Then came the Revolution which struck off the intellectual fetters under which Grillparzer and his contemporaries had groaned in Austria, but the liberation came too late for him."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by J27325 ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If anything makes an article lose its credibility in the eyes of a critical reader, it is the inability to place an apostrophe in the right place. OK, we can all make mistakes, and maybe this is a just a minor mistyping. Or perhaps the author just does not understand how apostrophes work ... and if that is the case, what else does he not understand? The word "committee's" in the last paragraph on Post-Napoleonic Europe is a plural ... no apostrophe needed (Harry Goldsmith)
Tried editing the first section (and have removed text like 'your gay') but it is very stilted as if translated. Needs a total rewrite by someone who knows the period. rsloch 00:55, 10 June 2006 (GMT)
Should have been 'you're gay', right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J27325 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Link 1 ( http://www.h-net.org/~habsweb/sourcetexts/censor.htm) does not work.
I have just done some editing and formatting. I have also indicated the many parts where it needs sources, although there are a few common-knowledge things I have let pass. This one needs major work, and is essential as a link between post Napoleonic Europe and WWI. I'll try to do some work, but I have yet to find sources. Chimba 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I needed to look up where this guy- Prince Metternich was born and that information is not even in this article! It just says he was born in Austria- that doesn't help.
68.18.162.224 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on making the article completely unreadable by adding fact tags to every sentence. -- 76.188.161.254 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the big fat one at the top of the page is enough, we know up front that the article in unsourced. Adding a "citation needed" tag to every single sentence is unnecessary and just renders it garbled and unreadable. I think we should remove most of them. 83.11.3.17 11:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the discussion pagedon't seem to work. Therefore, I would humbly suggest, the David Thomson's classic Europe Since Napolean becomes a reference (as well as an avid read). [P.S. Little bro', ain't it, you found my original purchase...?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy Thoughts ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
In the intro, what is "entrepaneuer?" Is this a misspelling of "entrepreneur?" If so, I can't understand what is meant by the sentence, "He was the archetypal entrepaneuer [sic] practitioner of 19th-century diplomatic realism, being deeply rooted in the postulates of the balance of power."-- 68.46.187.78 ( talk) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich is a horrible title. We should never put different languages together like that ("Prince von"). The old title Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, was basically fine, even if it didn't clarify that he was Fürst rather than merely Prinz. Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich would be horrible as well. Or we could just do Klemens Wenzel von Metternich (which is more or less what we do with Otto von Bismarck). At any rate the English "Prince" and the German "von" used in the same phrase is just awful. john k ( talk) 06:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. john k ( talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich →
Klemens von Metternich — By far the most commonly used name for him. Compare
Otto von Bismarck, whose situation is similar. We don't have any explicit rules about using titles with German nobility, but in my opinion we should go very light on using their noble titles in the article title, because these simply aren't used very much.
john k (
talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.All right, I've moved the other article to "Richard von Metternich"; hopefully an admin will be along to move this one similarly.-- Kotniski ( talk) 15:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm admittedly judging this with all the historical expertise of a classical musician, but I was surprised to read through this article about a historical figure whose name among Viennese is still synonymous with political repression and censorship, and find almost no neutral, well-sourced mention of criticism against him. Rather, it reads like a poorly-sourced hagiography of a great man who was long misunderstood by liberals. Any mention of the uglier aspects of his rule is written in a loaded, "some misguided people have said..." style, again without citations. My first impression was that the article has been hijacked by some conservative partisan who is a fan of Henry Kissinger, but the article history shows a different state of affairs; most of the skewed material was added gradually by anonymous IP addresses.
I do not know the literature about Metternich, and only know what I've read in biographies of Beethoven and Schubert, but then again, there isn't much evidence that the authors of the fawning "Minister of State" and "Legacy" sections knew the literature either. I seriously doubt that these aspects have not been mentioned by good historians of the period.
I notice that there's been a neutrality tag in place for the last two years. Is there no one knowledgeable of the historical literature who can fix these glaring issues? If not, I can personally translate some of the material from German wikipedia, which seems much more neutrally-written. Junggai ( talk) 09:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This guy was German and even called himself a German Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 ( talk) 03:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. I just thought I'd make a note that this article is one of my WP:Wikicup targets for this year. I have, in my possession, a biography of Metternich by Alan Plamer, which I am first going to go through meticulously to expand the article to a decent length. The next stage will be to layer another other books I can get hold of. After that, I will finish off with what I can glean from Google-Books sources, before putting it through a GA.
That much is certain. In later rounds, when I have more time, it would also be nice to get the article to featured status. But that's a little way off. In the meantime and beyond, any help with the article - if only copyediting and flagging up dubious/misleading sentences - would be much appreciated. Regards, - Jarry1250 Who? Discuss. 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi
During the copyedit a few thing came to light that may need attention:
A very good article, well written and informative. It is a little heavy going, perhaps some of the paragraphs could be split into smaller ones?
I would definitely consider putting it up for a GA nomination, if not FA? Chaosdruid ( talk) 01:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mykleavens ( talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I've so far checked the history of and discussions about the article and, as it seems to be stable at present, I'm happy to review it. Metternich is a historical figure I've always found interesting. Given the size of the article, it will take time and I may decide to present interim reports on selected sections. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I was about to fail the article immediately after first reading it on 4/5 June but, by the time I had written up my report, Jarry1250 started revising the lead which was then the weak point of the article and my main cause for concern. I decided to set the review aside for the time being until the new work had been completed and intended to read the article again yesterday (11 June) but a further set of inputs were being made.
I will say here that I expect the lead to be a well-written summary of the whole article, especially given its great length. Among the topics I expect to see, in both lead and article, are:
Prior to recent updates the article was not well-written and contained what I consider to be unnecessary verbiage, some of it apparently copied direct from the sort of text book whose author delights in throwing the dictionary at his readers. A maxim here is to keep language simple so that the article flows and the reader does not have to stop every couple of sentences to ask "what does this mean?" I also spotted examples of terminology that would fail WP:WTW.
I haven't read the article again since the recent revisions began and will place the review on hold for the time being to allow the work to continue. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The article fails the GA review for the following reasons based on the GA criteria. It has been nominated too soon having not been properly copyedited and with the scope still undefined. The main problem is its length. It needs to be converted into a true summary of the major topics I outlined above with child articles created per most if not all of these key topics. I would advise that you follow the example of Winston Churchill and others that have been approached in this way. The relevant GA criteria are:
well-written:
broad in its coverage:
stable – – no, it is not stable in that it was nominated before being ready and a lot of work has been done and is continuing to be done which effectively prevents a thorough review
I regret, therefore, that I must fail the article for GA. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 19:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this article is a vessel for proponents of liberal ideas to attack conservative ideas. Don't we have enough of those on Wikipedia already? -- 24.185.64.42 ( talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DCI ( talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I plan on reviewing this article within the coming week. DCI talk 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
My major concern is the first paragraph of Historical assessment. I understand that the comments in this paragraph are supposed to be from the point of view of an unfavourable historian, but unquoted phrases describing a "pointless" struggle and "a more enlightened chancellor" do not sound acceptable here on Wikipedia.
This article is well-written and, with the exception of the errors outlined above, is ready to be listed as GA. In order to make A-class or FA, corrections will need to be made around the article, again as listed above, but I am ready to pass this as soon as my major concern is addressed.
The lead contains this sentence:
"His decision to oppose Russian imperialism is also seen as a good one."
By whom? For what reasons?
I think this sentence needs to be removed but would like to solicit opinion on it.
The next sentence - "His detractors describe him as a bore who stuck to ill-thought out conservative principles only out of vanity and a sense of infallibility." - is hardly any better, sounding like an editorial. Any thoughts on it? Bazuz ( talk) 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire,
hmm...I would say that the Holy Roman Empire did not have Foreign Ministers, and that the Austrian Empire was not its successor state. The Empire of Austria - like the Kingdom of Prussia, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Kingdom of Saxony, the Kingdom of Bavaria, etc. - was just one of the several successor states of the Holy Roman Empire. It was not its successor state. -- Lubiesque ( talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
of course it was it main successor state since it was the emperors "Hausmacht". According to the "translatio imperii" the imperial honor, Franz II had, couldnt be taken from him and he was the founder of the Austrian Empire, so the imperial honor got transferred to Austria....thats not a matter of region but of imperial honor. Austria was "the" mainpower within the HRE for centuries, so you can call it a successor state. The German Empire the Prussians created in 1871 on the other hand had nothing to do with the HRE. Eromae ( talk) 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The word "german" could be misunderstood here. He was not politician in or of Germany, he was politician in the Holy Roman Empire and in the Empire of Austria. Since "german" was even linked to the article of nowadays federal republic of germany, I deleted the link and the whole word - it could be misunderstood. he was a politician who worked for the house of habsburg: so he worked for austria and during the time, the habsburgs were roman emperors he worked for them in the Holy Roman Emperor. This has nothing to do with nowadays germany. I think "was a politician and statesman of Rhenish extraction and one of the most important diplomats of his era, serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire," is a good and more correct sentnce. Eromae ( talk) 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Since he died in 1859, there must be several photos of him somewhere. Ericl ( talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
There is presently only a single citation in a lengthy and detailed lead (this for his dates of birth/death). Probably much of this is sourced in the main text—for the determined reader. It seems awfully light to have basically no direct citations in the lead itself. — MaxEnt 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This page kind of quickly skims over Metternich's reaction to his death. I bring this up because I was personally curious about it, and found a brief mention in Metternich by Sandeman (pg 185):
"Early in the autumn of 1822 Castlereagh committed suicide, so that all hope of his attendance at the coming Congress was ended. Metternich was much distressed. Castlereagh had in many ways agreed with his views and had often proved a good ally, especially in regard to the Eastern Question. 'He had learnt to understand me,' wrote Metternich, 'it will be years before another reaches the same stage of confidence.'"
I think it might be worth including maybe one line of text that it was personally distressing to him. Delukiel ( talk) 12:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)