Talk:Otto von Bismarck/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead too long

As per Wiki guidelines, introductions more than four paragraphs long should be cleaned up. I'm unable to add the relevant Wiki template but if somebody else could, or attempt to address the overlong intro themselves, that'd be great. 149.5.89.21 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

no that'a only a suggested guideline for the 5 million articles. This article is about one of the most influential and active leaders in the last two centuries. Thus it follows the Wiki guideline esp the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. as well as When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Rjensen (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Over 20 orders but no post nominals...?

I was doing a little research, and I wanted to add any post-nominal letters he might have to his name in the essay. Alas, 15 minutes and an abundance of purple links later, it doesn't appear that any of the orders, chivalrous or otherwise, grant or granted post nominals. Do any of them have PNs or did they grant them but Bismarck just didn't use them in or because of his title? Lockmelon (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Germany generally did and does not use Postnominals. There are some exceptions for the Catholic Church, like SJ or OB, for instance, but academic titles are always prefixed. The academic title becomes a part of the legal name, actually. --91.221.59.205 (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect reference to Bismarck as the leader of "revolutionary conservatism"?

The source cited to prove the point that Bismarck was "the leader of what historians call 'revolutionary conservatism'" [Hull, Isabel V. (2004). The Entourage of Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1888–1918. p. 85. ISBN 9780521533218.] doesn't actually contain any reference on that matter. The paragraph only mentions the political thoughts of Eulenburg, not Bismarck. In addition, the definition of revolutionary conservatism in the reference is not in accordance with the commonly used scientific definition that is linked to. Because the article is semi-protected, I, as a newbie, am not allowed to edit this. Maybe somebody who can, may want to take a look at this issue. Aratofaber (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

reference for the following text in your article:

"Meanwhile, as the war began, a German radical named Ferdinand Cohen-Blind attempted to assassinate Bismarck in Berlin, shooting him five times at close range. Bismarck had only minor injuries."

Newspaper article in old german language:

title: "Ueber das Attentat auf den Grafen Bismarck" newspaper: Wiener Morgen-Post date: 10th of May 1866 page: 1 location: Wien (de), Vienna (en)

Source: Austrian National Library, online edition

http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=mop&datum=18660510&seite=1

written in old german language 141.76.46.137 (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2019

change "was offered the Spanish throne, vacant since a revolution in 1868" to "was offered the Spanish throne, vacant since a [revolution in 1868]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution_(Spain) )" I don't know the proper link format off the top of my head. Cursuviam (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please correct: Title "Illustrious Highness" is incorrect

The title section gives his title during the time he was Count as "His Illustrious Highness Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen". This is incorrect; Seine Erlaucht, customarily translated as Illustrious Highness, is not a title of Counts per se, but of those counts whose counties used to be semi-souvereign within the Holy Roman Empire (see here for a list). The House of Bismarck did not have this rank. So, his title is Seine Hochgeboren, which in English is litterally "The High Born" (or even more litterally, His Highbornness) and best translated as something like "The Right Honorable" (or perhaps "His Lordship"), being one step above "Seine Hochwohlgeboren" (The High and Well Born), which is the title of all German nobility and which we might translate as "the Honorable".
But whatever the translation for Seine Hochgeboren, which is a bit tricky, His Illustrious Highness is at any rate incorrect.2001:A61:3A20:8B01:BC73:18BF:1D52:B958 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Cartoon depicting King Leopold II of the Belgians offering gifts to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.jpg

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)