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 article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Death
The deathbed image is a bit grim. Is that necessary? Feels a little exploitative and voyeuristic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.72.226 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated to that, the Rudolf Virchow article has a section about Bismarck challenging Virchow to a duel due a budget conflict. TGCP (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
"Emporer"
"picture of leopold ii and german emporer Bismarck"
A) Emperor is spelled wrong B) He was never an emperor — Preceding unsigned comment added by DankoDragicevic (talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pickup. The errors have been fixed. Chewings72 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The spelling was wrong, but the caption was correct. In the cartoon, Bismarck is being portrayed as the emperor. It's making a political statement about who was running Germany. I've revised the caption to make that clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Infobox title
Every since an infobox was added to this article on 21 August 2004, over 16 years ago, 3 years after the article was created, the title of the infobox has been Otto von Bismarck.
Now comes an editor who wants to change that.
Their first attempt was:
His Serene Highness
The Prince of Bismarck
KOBE KOIC KOSA GCLH GCOD KSOMHS
then
His Serene Highness
The Prince of Bismarck
then
His Serene Highness
Otto von Bismarck
The Prince of Bismarck
I still had objections to this, but -- in a spirit of compromise -- I let it stand. They, however, then returned to:
His Serene Highness
The Prince of Bismarck
which I, again, as a compromise, reverted back to:
His Serene Highness
Otto von Bismarck
The Prince of Bismarck
My feeling is that the infobox was been called Otto von Bosmarck for 16 years, and there is no compelling reason to change it. I am about to restore to that long-standing WP:STATUS QUO while we wait for consensus here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to think there is precedence for this. Looking at the infoboxes of other statesmen who held noble titles I gathered the following examples:
- The Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternich is called His Serene Highness The Prince of Metternich-Winneburg
- The British prime minister Margaret Thatcher is called The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher
- The French statesman Cardinal Richelieu is called His Grand Eminence The Cardinal Duke of Richelieu
- The Spanish prime minister Leopoldo O'Donnell is called The Most Excellent The Duke of Tetuán
- Векочел (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
An INSULT on “neutral point-of-view”
I am not an expert on Otto von Bismarck, which is the reason I came to Wikipedia, to begin a research on his biography, but the article as it currently stands (2021/01/25) is an insult to neutral point-of-view language. There is a lot of unnecessary subjectivism, and I will quote the troubling parts of the article as it is. We begin with the first sentence of the article already:
- “Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (...) was a conservative German statesman who masterminded the unification of Germany in 1871 (...)”
Mastermind, really? Are the editors aware that the term "(to) mastermind" has the connotation of brilliance and intellect? I'm not arguing Bismarck was not competent, in a way, but in Wikipedia, we should adhere to a neutral point-of-view in our language, instead of flattering historical figures. We should be objective, speak of facts, historical truths, not present a romantic dedication to a German statist.
- “A master of complex politics at home, Bismarck created the first welfare state in the modern world, with the goal of gaining working class support that might otherwise go to his Socialist opponents.”
A... master... of "complex politics". While the full sentence is somewhat accurate — Bismarck was indeed told by the ruling class to handle the socialists —, calling him a master is simply bizarre in an encyclopedia promoting NPOV. I haven't read the article in full, but I am very discouraged by the way this article introduction was written, and will look for other starting points in my research.
Later in the introduction, the current article devotes an entire paragraph to unbridled flattery:
- “A Junker himself, Bismarck was strong-willed, outspoken and overbearing, but he could also be polite, charming and witty.[citation definitely needed] Occasionally he displayed a violent temper – which he sometimes feigned to get the results he wanted – and he kept his power by melodramatically threatening resignation time and again, which cowed Wilhelm I. He possessed not only a long-term national and international vision but also the short-term ability to juggle complex developments. Bismarck became a hero to German nationalists; they built many monuments honoring the founder of the new Reich.”
I couldn't even describe a girlfriend in a more romantic way than this. I shouldn't even have to explain why this paragraph is extremely inappropriate considering our policy of NPOV. Polite, charming and witty are subjective qualities, and they would be appropriate if these qualities were presented in a quotation from someone from his time, but not in the article produced by an organization with a NPOV principle. Specially considering that during his government, Otto von Bismarck (in the name of the bourgeois elites) promoted wars and caused a lot of deaths and suffering of many people. Melodramatically is also very unnecessary here, we should describe objective historical facts, not how they seem to us a century and a half later. "Bismarck became a hero to German nationalists" can be easily rewritten to "Bismarck became an important figure in German nationalism". I will comment about the "founder of the new Reich" excerpt in a bit.
It seems more than 80% to 90% of this lede (or introduction) was written by one user alone, Rjensen, which is a seemingly competent historian and has written factual content, but he slipped in NPOV language a bit in this introduction. I am a historian myself, and I recognize that can happen. User Scar finds Otto von Bismarck "charming" and "witty", and has written so in the lede as if that could be an objective and neutral assessment. There are many historians who have certainly said otherwise of Otto von Bismarck, perhaps quite the opposite of "charming" and "witty". Again, a quote from a contemporary would address this issue. And for the "founder of the new Reich" passage, written by user Sca, the connotations of the word Reich and its links to German nationalism, imperialism and fascism were ignored in their edit. The historiography of "first" and "second" (also "third") Reich is highly linked to German nationalism and have lost favor in modern historiography. Even the Wikipedia article Reich addresses this, and I quote:
“The terms "First Reich" and "Second Reich" are not used by historians”
Also, what new Reich? That long-forgotten imperial bourgeois state is 150 years old! It was new to the epoch, but we live in the 21st century now.
Finally, as a thought experiment, imagine if a language as flattering as our article currently stands was said of a living leader right now. Imagine the "leaders" of the liberal-bourgeois democracy, such as Joe Biden, or Angela Merkel, having articles considering them "charming" and "witty". It certainly wouldn't be appropriate considering there are opponents of those politicians. Or perhaps considering Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping, masters of the socialist world, with very charming and witty personalities. I do find Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un very charming, and they certainly are very smart individuals, but I wouldn't say that in an objective article in a website promoting NPOV. While Bismarck may be dead, there are existing people who are strong opponents of some of his policies and practices (actually the German Empire's ruling class practices) and is disputed historiographically, so NPOV is certainly required here.
I will make changes to evoke a less biased approach to Otto von Bismarck when I can. — Felipe Forte (have fun!) 12:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- the adjectives used reflect the consensus of scholars--they are not the decisions of wikipedia editors. For example: (2) "Bismarck developed above all into a master of diplomacy" [E.J. Feuchtwanger - 2002]; 2) Henry Kissinger 2011: "Otto von Bismarck: Master Statesman"; (3) Bismarck (1815–1898), the 'Iron Chancellor' and master-statesman of Victorian Europe [L Senne & S Moore 2015]. (4) "In terms of charisma, the emperor's aura was outshined by the towering figure of Otto von Bismarck (1815—98), the 'Iron Chancellor,' whom most Germans considered to be the mastermind and architect of German national unity " [Professor T Scheffler - 2013]. These are judgments by scholars over a century after Bismarck's death, with access to all the secret documents--unlike current commentaries on people like Biden and Merkel. The job of Wikipedia editors is to tell readers what the reliable published secondary sources have concluded. And yes historians say Bismarck was a charming conversationalist: (5) " almost poetic quality that made him a wizard with words and a brilliant and fascinating conversationalist" [E.J. Feuchtwanger - 2002] Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think it is wise to try to change the article if you have claimed that your not an expert on Bismarck, or are just starting to read up on him. While yes some of the adjectives utilized are rather strong, (and some should be flat out re-written) it is fair to his general historic assessment. Also many of these compliments are from either from historians or His close friends. You state that the qualities of "polite charming and witty" are subjective but that is indeed what many of his contemporaries (including the somewhat notable historian John Lothrop Motley) saw him as. I've checked a few of the sources that were cited for the subjective claims and they are reputable. So in general I do not think there is much wrong here. While the article is rather positive (and I plan to fix this as negativity towards Bismarck is certainly common) it's not yet violating NPOV Chariotsacha (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Pietism
The "Early years" section says that Bismarck became a Pietist Lutheran under the influence of Marie von Thadden, who died in 1846. He married her cousin in 1847. It then goes on to say he adopted his wife's Pietism. So, which is it? If those bits are not contradictory, they need to be rewritten.Brianyoumans (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. The question of whether Bismarck converted to Pietism or not is a debated point, and since neither of the statements that were in the article were sourced, I have removed them both. The one source I have immediately available to me (Steinberg's 2011 biography) takes no stance on the matter. Others will, of course, have other sources, so the question of whether he converted or not, and under what circumstances (and whether it was real), can be added with a citation from a reliable source. Still, because it is debated among scholars, it's worthwhile to look to more than one source to find both sides of the dispute and let our article reflect them both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like the right solution. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Deletions
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)
- Regardless of your opinion on this edit, you should not have reverted changes to image placement that put it out of standard with MOS: "Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices." I'd also like to know what encyclopedic value a German language audio recording is to non-German speaking readers, what is the encyclopedic relevance of caricatures or coins such as those at right (apparently not important enough to actually discuss in article text), how "Last warnings and predictions" is WP:DUE, why we should use extensive quotes like the following when the information is already discussed in prose
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]
- Note that there are 7(!) long blockquotes of Steinberg in BMK's preferred version. Talk about WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 07:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Steinberg, 2011, p. 449.
- In the context, "disputed content" obviously means content which someone is attempting to add to the aritcle, it is not intended to mean content which has become part of the status quo of an article by having de facto consensus by being in the article for a long period of time. Your interpretation of ONUS would mean that any deletion of material must be maintained while discussion goes on. That has never been the case at en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- A neutral notice of this discussion has been placed on the tlak ages of the WikiPRojects listed aabove. In addition, the top 5 editors listed by "Authorship" have been similarly notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I support these removals, and for the reasons Buidhe has supported. Beyond My Ken says above that he supports much of them, too. I am left to wonder then why this particular act of boldness was arrested. I will add that overquotation, such as Buidhe highlights here, is not only undue, but raises copyright concerns. And is huge and ugly. –Vami♜_IV♠ 07:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Beyond My Ken that the deletions were excessive. The goal is to summarize the latest scholarship, and in this case the scholarly reviews are clear that Steinberg represents the consensus of scholars. Expressing that consensus is a hard task unless you know the scholarship in both English and German--Steinberg does it well. If an editor comes up with a BETTER summary of the consensus ok, but to erase a good summary and not replace it degrades the article. Rjensen (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- That may be so, and for the record I believe you, but a copy and paste from Steinberg is a copyright violation. Proper use of quotations in regular prose is minimal. Wikipedia is to be written in totally original prose. Not copied. And even if Steinberg were an editor and dropped that quote in, that would be a conflict of interest and still copyright infringement. A position other than this demonstrates a lack of understanding of our policies. –Vami♜_IV♠ 21:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Beyond My Ken that the deletions were excessive. The goal is to summarize the latest scholarship, and in this case the scholarly reviews are clear that Steinberg represents the consensus of scholars. Expressing that consensus is a hard task unless you know the scholarship in both English and German--Steinberg does it well. If an editor comes up with a BETTER summary of the consensus ok, but to erase a good summary and not replace it degrades the article. Rjensen (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- The suggestion is that "a copy and paste from Steinberg is a copyright violation." Well no--Wiki quidelines allow for quotations from publications if the amount is not excessive relative to the source. In this article we use about 950 words from Steinberg's 550 page book (about 2 pages). The Wikipedia guideline is WP:COPYQUOTE" Quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. This page sets out guidelines for using quotations in Wikipedia articles....it is generally permitted under fair use rules in the United States. However...fair-use quotation has limitations: The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted....What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work, and the importance and relevance of the quoted text to that work." Here what the quote allows is a presentation by a leading scholar of the established consensus among scholars. Wiki editors cannot do that very well: none of us is 1% as familiar with the literature as is Steinberg, who spent years pouring over the scholarship. .Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The extensive quotes should be removed, as the article's prose should be able to speak for itself. The sheer length of these quotes may also constitute a copyright violation. Furthermore, the excessive images could be placed in spin-off articles. While this article does not have that many, it could easily support a few more. Meanwhile, the section on his predictions seems to frame him as having been clairvoyant. That is unacceptable. Finally, the recording is fine where it is. It is the one surviving recording of his voice. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- the suggestion is that quotes should be removed, as the article's prose should be able to speak for itself.. Well no--it's really quite hard to summarize a major career in a short paragraph like Steinberg did. He spent a few years thinking out the problem and Wiki editors spend a few minutes. The goal is helping our readers with the best possible coverage of one of the most important historical figures. (As for fair use the excerpt are already on line at google books --released by the publisher.) Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a repository of scholarly quotations. Our purpose here is to create a tertiary work that presents notable subjects in our own words. To do anything else is to violate our guiding principles as the editors of an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, I dispute the idea that the lengthy Steinberg quotations are in some way impossible to summarise. If I was writing a Bismarckian historiography, I would not have included those massive quotes. Instead, I would summarise the work in my own words. There is no need to quote large passages when you could easily summarise them in a few short sentences, assuming that you need to summarise those passages at all. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- the suggestion is that quotes should be removed, as the article's prose should be able to speak for itself.. Well no--it's really quite hard to summarize a major career in a short paragraph like Steinberg did. He spent a few years thinking out the problem and Wiki editors spend a few minutes. The goal is helping our readers with the best possible coverage of one of the most important historical figures. (As for fair use the excerpt are already on line at google books --released by the publisher.) Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- The block quotes need to go. See MOS:QUOTES
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 ...
- TGhe argument above is that "There is no need to quote large passages when you could easily summarise them in a few short sentences," -- easily -- no that is really hard to do unless the wiki editor is a very good wriotrerf and a solid expert on Bismark--and even then the article loses the authority of state of the art scholarship. That is, it weakens the article and deprives the readers of the best ideas. Rjensen (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Name given in infobox
Do you guys think we should include "The Prince of Bismarck" as his name in the infobox? That is the format often used for politicians who happen to hold noble titles. This is what is done for most of the British prime ministers, for instance. Векочел (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)