This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Otto von Bismarck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Otto von Bismarck is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 21, 2012, March 21, 2013, March 21, 2015, and March 21, 2016. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was reviewed by
PC Pro on June 2007. Comments: Overview: "Largely sound on the facts", "a marked deterioration towards the end", "leaves out the prominent theme of the Bismarck cult that flowered after his departure from office". Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
An editor removed 4,000 bytes of material from the article. While some of the edits were constructive, overall, the bulk of the edits did not improve the article, so I reverted to restore the material, asking the editor to come here and discuss their edits. Instead they re-deleted the material, citing WP:ONUS. However, ONUS is about disputed material, and the material that was deleted has been in the article for quite a while, so ONUS does not really apply, as the material is not in any realistic way "disputed."
What actually applies here is WP:BRD: the editor made a Bold edit, I Reverted, and now it's time to Discuss. I have asked the editor again, on their talk page, to discuss the edits, leaving the article in the WP:STATUSQUO version while the discussion goes on. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thus ended the extraordinary public career of Otto von Bismarck, who ... had presided over the affairs of a state he made great and glorious. ... Now the humble posture that he had necessarily adopted in his written communications with his royal master had become his real posture. The old servant, no matter how great and how brilliant, had become in reality what he had always played as on a stage: a servant who could be dismissed at will by his Sovereign. He had defended that royal prerogative because it had allowed him to carry out his immense will; now the absolute prerogative of the Emperor became what it has always been, the prerogative of the sovereign. Having crushed his parliamentary opponents, flattened and abused his ministers, and refused to allow himself to be bound by any loyalty, Bismarck had no ally left when he needed it. It was not his cabinet nor his parliamentary majority. He had made sure that it remained the sovereign's, and so it was that he fell because of a system that he preserved and bequeathed to the unstable young Emperor. [1]
References
Our role as Wikipedians to to summarise RSs in our own words, not cut and paste from them. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ...
Should we list Bismarck in the infobox as "The Prince of Bismarck"? Векочел ( talk) 02:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this should be skilfully Stephengulliver ( talk) 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
template "main article" leading to "state socialism" is missing. Article "state socialism" is describing more of that content though the title is wrong. I already added comments on "state socialism"s discussion demanding changes in the title due to unprecise use of the term socialsm (marx theoretical definition and practical examples of socialist systems showed the governements property of productive factors such as factories, tools,...). WikiYeti ( talk) 09:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
There's very little mention of his family, just a brief mention of his son at his deathbed. Oddly there is more about this in the article on this son. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Otto von Bismarck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Otto von Bismarck is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 21, 2012, March 21, 2013, March 21, 2015, and March 21, 2016. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was reviewed by
PC Pro on June 2007. Comments: Overview: "Largely sound on the facts", "a marked deterioration towards the end", "leaves out the prominent theme of the Bismarck cult that flowered after his departure from office". Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
An editor removed 4,000 bytes of material from the article. While some of the edits were constructive, overall, the bulk of the edits did not improve the article, so I reverted to restore the material, asking the editor to come here and discuss their edits. Instead they re-deleted the material, citing WP:ONUS. However, ONUS is about disputed material, and the material that was deleted has been in the article for quite a while, so ONUS does not really apply, as the material is not in any realistic way "disputed."
What actually applies here is WP:BRD: the editor made a Bold edit, I Reverted, and now it's time to Discuss. I have asked the editor again, on their talk page, to discuss the edits, leaving the article in the WP:STATUSQUO version while the discussion goes on. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thus ended the extraordinary public career of Otto von Bismarck, who ... had presided over the affairs of a state he made great and glorious. ... Now the humble posture that he had necessarily adopted in his written communications with his royal master had become his real posture. The old servant, no matter how great and how brilliant, had become in reality what he had always played as on a stage: a servant who could be dismissed at will by his Sovereign. He had defended that royal prerogative because it had allowed him to carry out his immense will; now the absolute prerogative of the Emperor became what it has always been, the prerogative of the sovereign. Having crushed his parliamentary opponents, flattened and abused his ministers, and refused to allow himself to be bound by any loyalty, Bismarck had no ally left when he needed it. It was not his cabinet nor his parliamentary majority. He had made sure that it remained the sovereign's, and so it was that he fell because of a system that he preserved and bequeathed to the unstable young Emperor. [1]
References
Our role as Wikipedians to to summarise RSs in our own words, not cut and paste from them. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ...
Should we list Bismarck in the infobox as "The Prince of Bismarck"? Векочел ( talk) 02:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this should be skilfully Stephengulliver ( talk) 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
template "main article" leading to "state socialism" is missing. Article "state socialism" is describing more of that content though the title is wrong. I already added comments on "state socialism"s discussion demanding changes in the title due to unprecise use of the term socialsm (marx theoretical definition and practical examples of socialist systems showed the governements property of productive factors such as factories, tools,...). WikiYeti ( talk) 09:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
There's very little mention of his family, just a brief mention of his son at his deathbed. Oddly there is more about this in the article on this son. PatGallacher ( talk) 20:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)