Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2024 [1].

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

edit
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward was born a British prince and had a quintessential upper-class Victorian upbringing. Nannies, governess, prep schools, Eton and regular visits to Granny Vicky. Until one day a succession crisis in a tiny German statelet changed his future forever. He was not the first candidate for the dukedom but German emperor (and cousin) Wilhelm wanted a boy he could mold into one of his henchmen and Charles Edward, whose father had been dead since before he was born, seemed like the perfect candidate. The teenaged prince had been put on path that would take him to strange, nasty places.

This is my first featured article candidacy. I have been working on this article sporadically over recent years, heavily in the past several months and done a lot research into this man's life. The article has been promoted to good status, informally and formally peer reviewed since december. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to review it, I will try to respond as fast as I can. Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Hello and welcome to FAC! I'll open with an image review

done

  • Suggest adding alt text where it is missing

done

  • File:Groepsportret_van_de_familie_van_koningin-regentes_Emma,_anonymous,_1896_-_1897.jpg is missing information on first publication, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:Duke_Charles_Edward_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_with_wife_and_children.jpg

The first image is old enough to be assumed in the public domain. I've added a copyright tag specifying that. The second image has been given to the commons by the German archive.

The first one still has a tag based on publication date, so we still need info on first publication. On the second, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The United States section of List of countries' copyright lengths says that anonymous works enter the public domain "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" so it should be in the public domain by now whenever it was published. However, I'm not sure what tag to use to indicate that point.
  1. The 120 from creation piece only kicks in if it was first published after 1978, according to that table, so we'd still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Sorry I got mixed up between images, I'm not quite sure how to interpret the second image, the source says (http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei) it thinks the image is in the public domain but isn't sure. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since this is hosted on Commons, even if we take that as correct we'd still need to know US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same author problem exists with File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_136-B0556,_Karl-Eduard_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha.jpg. Ditto File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg

I've looked up a translation of the source and it seems to have been taken by someone who died in 1913. I've added a translation

What about File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_in_the_German_Reich_(1871).svg: suggest clarifying the caption to specify which portion is the polity of interest - there are two shapes that could potentially be highlighted

Both are - one is Coburg and the other is Gotha. I've added a clarification of the relevant colour.

  • File:Gotha_Order_of_the_Garter.JPG: under US law replication of a 2D work doesn't garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for the status of the work pictured

I've added a UK government copyright template. I'm not sure if it also needs a US template?

No, but the source should be clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make the source and author sections more informative--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that these have been edited? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to publish the edit, done now.--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ZIEL_ERKANNT!_12._Reichs-Frontsoldatentag_des_Stahlhelm_B.d.F._Breslau_30_31_Mai_1931_15_Propaganda_Erinnerungsschrift_(Commemorative_rally_book_of_Stahlhelmbund,_German_right-wing_paramilitary_organisation_1918–1935)_No_known_copyri.jpg: why does this have a CC license? I don't see that at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that image out now.--Llewee (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Nikkimaria, apologies for asking lots of questions, I'm not hugely fluent in copyright issues.--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the order of the Garter image and added File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776736585).jpg.--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a more specific tag available for this new image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more specific tags.--Llewee (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I've added an additional image to the article. File:Sibylla med Prins Gustaf Adolf och alla barnen.jpg

Support by Nick-D

edit

I don't think I'll have time to post full review, but the statement that "In March 1945, the German government formed a "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" of which Charles Edward was made chairman. This group was meant to negotiate with the Western Allies in order to gain better living conditions for the defeated Germans after the war. The committee members were in theory "uncompromised" Germans with fewer links to the regime. The quick collapse of Nazi Germany after that point meant that enough time was not available for negotiations" jumped out of me:

  • The first sentence is surprising given that the main body of what remained of the German Government (Hitler and his group in Berlin) was determined to go down in flames. Hitler sacked, jailed or killed anyone he found was engaging in negotiations of this type. Was this a committee formed by one of the breakaway elements of the government who recognised that the war was lost?
  • The last sentence is wrong as the Allies had a policy of insisting on the unconditional surrender of Germany, and they would not have engaged with this group (except to see if it could be used to bring about unconditional surrender) no matter how much time was available. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg: The German Red Cross and the Plan to Kill "unfit" citizens 1933-1945 pp 165-166" says;
In March 1945 Hitler asked Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to form a Committee for the Protection of European Humanity. Charles Edward was designated as chairman, and the group was supposed to represent "uncompromised" Germans in their association with the National Socialist government who could negotiate with the Western Allies to ensure tolerable living conditions for civilians in Germany after the war concluded. As president of the DRK, Charles Edward contacted ICRC Vice President Carl Burckhardt who agreed to act as an liaison with the British and American governments on the matter. The coordinated military thrusts from both East and West resulted in such a rapid collapse of the German military that the committee never really had time to begin fruitful negotiations with the foreign governments. Total surrender devolved by May 1945, and Hitler was dead (Zimmerman, 1980; Stauffer, 1991, 167-190, Stauffer, 1998, 350; Poguntke, 2010, 125).
Given the quality of the source I mainly just took its contents on trust. I suppose lack of time might be shorthand for not enough time for the allies to be asked and say no but I don't really know.--Llewee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Ian Kershaw's book The End today, which is one of the standard works on the last period of Nazi Germany, and it confirms that Hitler didn't want to enter into any form of peace negotiations (aside from sort-of tolerating negotiations to end the fighting in Italy). There were multiple breakaway groups though that attempted this. As this topic seems to be outside of the book you're consulting's area of focus, I'd suggest cross checking these claims against more specialist sources, as I'm fairly confident that the author here is mistaken. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the book you referenced on Google books for uses of the phrase "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" but none appeared. I can't find any relevant search results on this website or the wider internet. As the sources Rushton references are all German language sources I probably wouldn't be able to much information out of I think it might be best just to take the text out.--Llewee (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Nick-D, I forgot to link to you.--Llewee (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some further comments in response to a request on my talk page:

  • The first sentence of the lead is over-complex.
  • I have tried to make the first sentence simpler and reorganised the first paragraph.
  • "Potsdam, the government district of Berlin" - Potsdam is outside of Berlin
  • I have clarified this.
  • "was cheered on by onlookers" - is the 'on' needed here?
  • done
  • I'd suggest swapping the first and second sentences of the second para of the 'Peacetime reign' section
  • "The duke generally tried to stay out of politics, especially diplomatic issues between Great Britain and Germany, which led to him receiving additional criticism" - from who?
  • It doesn't say who made that particular criticism but I have tried to add more context to the paragraph.
  • "By 1918 he would have an estimated wealth of between 50 and 60 million marks" - this wording is a bit awkward. Can you just say that this was his estimated wealth?
  • The problem is that 1918 is forward in time from "peacetime reign" but the information doesn't really fit in the First World War section.
  • "due to having a permanently damaged leg from a sledging accident" - this grammar is also a bit off
  • I think that should be better
  • What he did in World War I is unclear. It's noted that he "He provided non-combat support to the army corps from his territories", but what this involved isn't noted (was this actions taken by his government, or stuff he did personally?). It's then noted that he served in Belgium and the Eastern Front, but the capacity in which he did so isn't explained.
  • I've tried to add some additional clarity to that sentence but the sources don't say much more than that he was present. Urbach says he was not doing very much which is mentioned in the article.
  • "was due to paranoia that he would be killed" - was this really paranoia?
  • I've changed it to anxiety.
  • "He hid Hermann Ehrhardt, a Freikorps commander..." - I'd suggest starting this sentence with when this occurred
  • I have added the year at the start.
  • The final section on works by historians doesn't note his antisemitism and far right views, which appears to have been a significant reason for his support for the Nazis. It seems a bit of a cop out to blame this on his unhappy early life given the article notes his views became more extreme over time. Can this be discussed? Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2016 and 2018 books don't say much about his views in their concluding summaries. I have tried to add more detail, especially more emphasis on his importance to the regime in the relevant section.

Support My comments are now addressed and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment. ... died ..., [[Haemophilia in European royalty|having suffered]] from [[haemophilia]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG violation (and perhaps one of MOS:SUFFER as well). You could write something like "... who was a haemophiliac like many other European royalty, died ..." but I am sure there is an even better way to phrase it. —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording now.--Llewee (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

I am interest to read the article again after the informal peer review. I will leave the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments, I'll work through them as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and family background

  • I think Family would be enough of a header.
    • I've done that and moved the detail about his birth to the childhood section.
  • I'd like to see both father and mother introduced before his father's death, and the titles the boy inherited at birth. Possibly even before the sister.
    • I've reorganised the section so that his parents are introduced first, then his sister and then the stuff about his father's death

Childhood

  • "He was then sent to school without his sister. His schooling took place at boarding schools." - I feel that these extremely short sentences could perhaps be combined, avoiding "school" - "schooling".
    • done

Selection as heir

  • I believe that the "colonies" in the image caption is not needed, as the two districts will not be expected in colonies.
    • ditto
  • ref order: I notice twice in this section that references are not in numerical order as expected, - didn't watch before, please check.
  • "... King William II of Württemberg, and found him a tutor. Later, Emperor Wilhelm organised ..." - it looks a bit strange to see two people with the same name so differently next to each other.
  • I can see that but it's based on the names the two men's articles use.
  • "He attended Bonn University. He studied law but ..." - I bet these sentences can be combined.
  • done

Marriage ...

  • "His entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography comments that they were happy, but Urbach indicates otherwise." - if the "happy" from the dictionary should be mentioned at all - how would they know - please find an abbreviation when it's mentioned first.

Personal life

  • "They are so sensible, 'wenn sie nicht verhetzt werden' (when they are not poisoned)", - I suggest to render the sentence in English, and give the German expression in brackets. I believe that "poison" is too ambiguous, - my dictionary has no good word for "verhetzen" but "incite" seems to work.
  • The quote uses different brackets than those usually used for translations by Urbach, so I think the duke might have decided to write the phrase in both languages in his letter.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family often do not appear happy in photographs." - I am not happy with that sentence, as a construction (The family often do not ...), and it contradicts the two photographs we can see ;)
  • "It is unknown whether it was true." - I feel that this sentence is redundant to "allegations".
  • "When they grew up, Charles Edward's children were often a disappointment to him in their choice of romantic relationships, ..." - I think it could be simpler saying that the their choice disappointed him, which would also make "when they grew up" redundant.
  • "The marriage meant that Sibylla would be expected to become Queen of Sweden (which however did not happen)." - I seem to remember that we discussed that all this is implied in "second to the Swedish throne".
  • "The former duke began to look for political options he felt were tougher than the former emperor had been during the First World War." - sorry, I don't understand the meaning.

Political ...

  • I think that the lead of the linked article gymnasium is better than the footnote offered.

Unofficial diplomat

  • the dictionary again, - it should certainly not be linked again
  • done

Second World War

  • "Hubertus † fürs Vaterland" (Hubertus died for Germany). - no Vaterland means "fatherland", or home country, not Germany.
  • "committed suicide" - I guess you are aware that the phrasing is contentious, - too close to "commit a crime"
  • done

Trial ...

  • dictionary once more
  • done
  • can we avoid "as a result" in two sentences in a row?
  • done
  • "Seaforth Highlanders" are mentioned five times, linked three of those (1,2,4) - perhaps check for duplicate links.
  • done

Death

  • "Elsässer Straße (Alsatian Street)" - if the street is needed (which I doubt) there's no need to give it italics and a translation.
  • done

General: the separation of personal and political life (under Far-right) makes for a tricky chronology - something to think about. I'll look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, infobox

  • I believe that the lead has some unneeded detail. It should focus on the subject.
    1. I don't need his father's cause of death, and even less that the father's condition was frequent in nobility, - that's for later, the latter perhaps not at all.
    2. Instead of "His paternal grandparents were Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.", an addition to the father as being the Queen's son might be enough to make the connection.
      • I'm reluctant to take out the reference to Prince Albert because I think the "of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is a helpful way of quickly conveying to the reader why a British prince might have been in the line of succession for a German dukedom.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        understand that now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)
    3. I didn't get "sickly" from remembering the body section, rather "the perfect little prince" ;) (but that may be just me).
    4. I don't think his children are lead material (beyond saying "five"), unless perhaps Sibylla. They have prime position in the infobox.
  • I think if we hit the reader with "Nazi politician" in the first sentence (on top of the uniform), we might want to add his position with the Red Cross and "unoffical diplomat" there, for perspective.
    • I've put the details about his Nazi positions into the first paragraph and moved down the content about his life as a kid. I've added a brief reference to his status as a British Prince to the first sentence as I think that's one of the most notable details to an English-speaking audience and necessary context to his diplomatic roll.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he lost his English titles before the German ones which might be reflected.
  • "like the other German monarchs" - he was no monarch, and for "nobility", it's the wrong link.
  • I think his function as head of the Red Cross should somehow in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the comments, I tried the indenting also. Easy rule: when replying to something indented, copy that indenting. (If not the whole idea gets lost. Which may make it tricky for someone blind.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your return: reading the lead again after your changes, I like it much better. I suggest you introduce "a state of the German Empire" sooner, because that is so unexpected. I wonder if it would be better to mention in the first paragraph - which should be a rough overview - his functions in the Red Cross and as informal diplomat, and bring the details later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't know how else to say it. In the first paragraph, I'd just say he was leader of the Red Cross and an informal diplomat (to distinguish from a SS leader or minister). The details - that at the time the Red Cross was carrying out eugenic concepts - don't belong in the first few sentences, but rather the last para of the lead, and in not too much detail. Other than that, I'm ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done--Llewee (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was a pleasure, - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therealscorp1an

edit
I have reorganised the lead now.--Llewee (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Llewee: "In 1899, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha decided on how to deal with the succession of Duke Alfred, who was in ill health. Duke Alfred's only son, Prince Alfred, had died in February 1899." These sentences may seem a little confusing. Specific dates are given as to when Prince Alfred died, but not for when the succession is dealt with. I would suggest changing it to "In late 1899, the House..." - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Llewee: Keeping the sections of "Selection as heir" and especially "Regency" out of the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" section may seem a bit illogical as he had a regent while being the Duke, so should it not technically be inside the Duke section? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a new section in order to create more of a balance between the different sections sizes. I'm reluctant to split up education and regency because they cover heavily overlapping time periods.--Llewee (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee away until next weekend (Old post, please ignore)

edit

Hello all, thank you for your comments which have been very helpful. I am about to go away on holiday, I'll carry on working on the article when I get back.--Llewee (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. I came to say that in this edit (conflict?), you lost indenting and replies, wanting to ask you to fix it. Perhaps I can do it, just not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Buidhe

edit

Article says that Martha Liebermann was going to be deported to Auschwitz. This is unlikely because elderly German Jews and especially those well connected were almost always deported to Theresienstadt. Martha Liebermann's article seems to have the correct information with a source. Can you fix this? (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, The cited book says it was Auschwitz.--Llewee (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's wrong though, for the reasons discussed above, and especially because the source in Liebermann's article seems to say the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even just googling for "Martha Liebermann" "Auschwitz" I find plenty of sources that say she was about to be deported to Theresienstadt, and no claims that she was going to Auschwitz. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it and added a source from her page.--Llewee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked if I plan to support this nomination and the answer is no. Actually after looking at it again, I become concerned about comprehensiveness issues if more German sources aren't used. In just a quick google scholar search I found[2] which sheds light on an issue not covered at all in the article, and this which could clarify the claimed "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity". (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, thanks for the response, I have read through the relevant chapter of the first book and added some information which is pertinent to this article. I will respond to your other comments later this evening. I would like to mention, though, that out of the five main sources used in the article two are in German and one is written in English by a German.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "the last sovereign duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a state of the German Empire". A sovereign ruler is one who has no superior. It is the wrong word here.
  • "was off-putting to both his subjects and the German elite". This implies that he only had two subjects. I suggest "was off-putting both to his subjects and to the German elite"
  • done
  • "Charles Edward was not affected by haemophilia because a boy cannot inherit the condition from his father." It is a pedantic point, but this is not quite right. Even if it had been a condition which could be inherited through the male line, he would not have been certain of inheriting the haemophilia allele. Maybe "Charles Edward was in no danger of being affected by haemophilia because a boy cannot inherit the condition from his father."
  • done
  • Theo Aronson. You should describe him - eg "the royal biographer Theo Aronson. Also, it is usual to only use the surname on later mentions.
  • done
  • Friedrich Facius. You should explain who he is.
  • I'm not really sure who he is. He is listed as the writer of the duke's entry in a German encyclopaedia.
  • According to historian Alan R. Rushton. This is at the second mention of him, It should be the first.
  • done
  • "an annual income of about 2.5 million marks". This will mean little to most readers. Perhaps provide a conversion to the value of the pound in the same period.
  • I've added a conversion in a footnote
  • The conversions in notes 2 and 6 are False precision. For "£6,000 in 1890 was the equivalent to £637,962.29 in 2023", say "around £638,000", and for "2,500,000 marks in 1910 was the equivalent of 122152.50 British pounds at the time", "around £122,000". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Edward could not participate in combat due to having a permanently damaged leg from a sledging accident." This seems important enough to be described when it happened.
I can't find any more information about it.
  • " after Ehrhardt participated in the Kapp Putsch against the government". I would specify "unsuccessful Kapp Putsch".
  • done
  • "disrupted Ehrhart's own attempts to take power". You should explain who Erhart was and his attempts.
  • I've added some more detail.
  • "This was a social club which membership largely consisted of businessmen". This is ungrammatical. Maybe "This was a social club which had a membership largely composed of businessmen".
  • done
  • "Charles Edward used the event as a public display of his ideology and to improve the damaged prestige of the duke's family." How was it damaged? You have not said so unless I have missed it.
She says because of the First World War.--Llewee (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The marriage was congratulated by Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring." This is ungrammatical.
  • done now
  • "an Obergruppenführer in the SA". I would spell out "SA" and provide a translation of the whole expression.
  • done
  • "He lost his SA uniform after the Night of the Long Knives". This sounds odd. Do you mean that his uniform was confiscated? If you mean that he lost the right to use the uniform when the SA was suppressed you should say so.
  • done
  • Eugenics. This paragraph is misleading as it ignores the international context and implies that it was a German phenomenon. Eugenics originated in Britain as an offshoot of Darwinism and gained international support. In Britain its supporters included Winston Churchill and the socialist Fabian Society. Forced sterilisation was introduced in a number of countries, but eugenics was widely rejected after WWII as it was discredited by the Nazis use of it to justify mass murder. I would cut down this paragraph.
  • "Eugenics was a mainstream part of international academic and public debate in the early 20th century.[119][120][121] Eugenic policies were introduced in various countries including France, the United States and the United Kingdom." This is clumsy and dubious on the UK. Eugenic laws were proposed but so far as I know never passed. Maybe something like "In the early twentieth century eugenic ideas received wide international support across the political spectrum and eugenic policies such as compulsory sterilisation of "defectives" were introduced in several countries. The theory lost mainstream support after WWII because of its use by the Nazis to justify mass murder." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was president of the German version of the Anglo-German fellowship[132] and lobbied figures believed to be pro-German". 1. I think it would be clearer to give the name in German with a translation in brackets. 2. "figures" grammatically appears to mean Germans. I suggest "Britons" and mentioning Edward as in the source. The previous paragraph on 1937-8 would logically come after this one.
  • done
  • "Charles Edward's ODNB entry". I think you should mention the author, Charlotte Zeepvat.
  • Paragraph starting "In 1940". This should be in the WWII section.
  • I'd prefer to keep it in the Unofficial diplomat section because it falls into that category. The German Red Cross and eugenics section also included information about events that happened after 1939.
  • "to immigrate to the United States" This should be "emigrate".
  • "However, the historian also noted that the duke had a close friendship with Hitler and could have influenced him." I am not sure what you are saying here - that he may have influenced Hitler?
  • Yes that's what Rushton says. He argues that Charles Eduard could have persuaded Hitler to stop the murders of disabled people on the grounds that they were undermining the wartime morale of the German people. I've tried to make the point clearer.
  • "Russia was part of the Soviet Union, a communist state, at the time." I do not think you need to say this. Anyone who does not know it would hardly understand the article.
  • Ok, I have got rid of it now,
  • Ref 90 is odd. You cite p. 289 of an American journal for a British Act of Parliament and the link goes to p. 288 in German. You should be able to find a British source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed it now.
I think I have responded to all you concerns now Dudley Miles.--Llewee (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

I am aware that Dudley is in the middle of a review, but also that this nomination has been open for eight weeks and while attracting a lot of comments has only the single general support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

edit
Fascinating if sad story. Nothing much jumped out on a read-through, & I see the article has been generally well-chewed over above. I' do some locating in the caption to the photo of him seated with Goebbels etc, though - "from right" perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Therealscorp1an

edit
Article looks good and seems like all issues have been addressed. I am in support. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

edit

I was asked for a further opinion. I do not yet have a support or oppose to offer (and I am not sure I can without reviewing the sources) but I was surprised to read that "Victoria Adelaide lacked any [..] Jewish ancestry". Why would we expect any Jewish ancestors? European royalty are known for marrying only European royalty (none of which were Jewish) to the point of pedigree collapse. Mentioning explicitly the lack of Jewish ancestors seems odd, almost like saying explicitly that she did not have any Maori ancestry. Also, emdashes in "Marriage and children" section should be endashes, see MOS:DASH. —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is relevant as the article makes clear there was prejudice against non-Germans and German Jews. The rules against marrying non-Royals were not universally observed. According to [3] Prince Philip had Jewish ancestors. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, It based on the text of the source which emphasises those two points;
It was obvious that the Duke of Coburg would soon need a German wife. So the Empress arranged the marriage concluded in October 1905 with her niece Viktoria Adelheid of Schleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg - an old German noble family that had no foreigners or even Jews in its ancestry. In a special issue of the Coburger Tageblatt on the occasion of the wedding in the ducal house it was said that the people "will always prefer to welcome a princess born into their own tribe as mother of the country rather than a stranger." --Llewee (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concede the point on Jewish ancestry (and I know I was exaggerating wrt "only royalty"; the scandals surrounding Mary Bowes, another ancestress of Charles III, feature prominently in one of my articles, Eliza Stephens). Besides the rumors of illegitimacy, Franz Leopold Lafontaine, the grandfather of Julia, Princess of Battenberg, appears to have married the daughter of a converted court Jew. I think the main point is the German public objected to foreign-born duchesses. It is weird this was such a big issue in a country ruled by a grandson of Queen Victoria. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was perhaps the point. The Kaiser's mother Victoria, Princess Royal (odd article title, given she was Empress of Germany, if only for a Truss-like 99 days) caused a fair degree of embarassment by more or less refusing to "be German". For example, she died in 1901 and left instructions she be buried wrapped in a Union Jack. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the dashes, I have changed them now.--Llewee (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kusma, just checking if there is any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't really have time and energy to look in very much detail and will not comment further on prose (as would be needed for a well founded support). I have looked at the sources mentioned by buidhe above and tried a short search myself and could not find extensive coverage in my usual places. From Morgenbrod-Merkenich 347–350, I think there is a little bit to add about the 1940 voyage; that Roosevelt almost did not meet Carl Eduard (p. 348), and that Carl Eduard's charisma prevented a diplomatic disaster (p. 349). The American Red Cross's hostility sounds less harsh on p. 348. None of this is major though.
It looks like JJE is on the source review; if that ends in a pass, I am not planning to object to promotion of this article. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

edit
  • The "References" section contains several p/pp errors, and at least one hyphen which should be an en dash.
  • "Bibliography": details of books should either all have publisher locations or none should.
  • Sandner should have a page range.
  • The titles of articles - those in quote marks - should either all be in title case or all be in sentence case.
  • "He was privately educated, lastly at Eton College." The "lastly" seems to be contradicted by "Between 1899 and 1905, he was put through various forms of education".
  • "The duke was a conservative ruler". "duke" needs an upper-case D per MOS:JOBTITLE. Please check the rest of the article for similar instances. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments Gog the Mild, I think I have responded to all but one of them. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the Sandner one, as the only use of it is citation number 44 which has a page number.--Llewee (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 78, should that be 2016?
  • Cites 31, 35 and 43 do not link to Victoria in the bibliography.
  • "During the First World War, he chose to support the German Empire and participated in the Imperial German Army in non-combatant positions due to a disability" is slightly ambiguous. Perhaps 'During the First World War he chose to support the German Empire, participating in the Imperial German Army; due to a disability he was only appointed to non-combatant positions' or similar?
  • "The German Revolution deposed him". Er, actually it didn't. Maybe 'He was disposed during the German Revolution ...'?
  • The second paragraph of the lead uses "he was" five times, including three times in one sentence.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entries in the bibliography should be in alphabetical order. (Stadler}
  • Stadler and Sandner each need eg "|pages=269–298" to show the source's page range of the chapter or article referred to within its host work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've responded to these issues.--Llewee (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

edit

Note 4 needs a citation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done, AirshipJungleman29--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I must echo the point raised by other people that the article relying almost entirely on English sources strikes me as inappropriate - this is a topic with way more pertinence to German history. "Moorhouse, Roger (18 July 2015). "Go Betweens for Hitler by Karina Urbach". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 19 December 2022." does not need an ISSN. I am not sure that O'Donovan is prominent enough for them to be cited here in the review. There seems to be a bit of an alphabetization issue in the Sources section. Is "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, H.H. Prince Andreas (2015). I Did It My Way. Memoirs of HH Prince Andreas of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Eurohistory.com. ISBN 9781944207007." used anywhere? Giving a courtesy cite to @Ealdgyth and K.e.coffman: in case they have further points. Spot-check of this version:

I don't think it is fair to say the article is based almost entirely on English sources. Büschel, Oltmann and Facius are all used extensively in the article. Also, Urbach is a German writing in English. With the exception of Rushton, the English language sources written by authors with no connection to Germany tend to be concentrated in the early part of the article or in the later sections about his relationship with Britain. I've tried to add more information from the sources Buidhe suggested. I'm including O'Donovan because it was published in The Daily Telegraph which is a well-known newspaper in the UK. I have taken out the ISBN in Moorhouse.--Llewee (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the memoirs you mentioned was being used but has been removed by another editor.--Llewee (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 I don't see the Alfred issue here. "On 11 November, his abdication was demanded in Coburg. Only on 14 November, later than most other ruling princes, did he formally announce that he had "ceased to rule" in both Gotha and Coburg. He did not explicitly renounce his throne" is a pretty close translation of "11. in Coburg seine Abdankung gefordert; erst am 14. ließ er verkünden, er habe in beiden Herzogtümern „aufgehört zu regieren“, ohne ausdrücklich auf den Thron zu verzichten." My understanding is that nationalistic-militaristic groups and völkisch are not mutually inclusive, so we can't say "völkisch" in our article. The paragraph in "Trial and final years" is a bit too detailed for this source.
  • "somewhat delicate condition" almost undoubtedly means illness, 19th century newspapers often used euphemisms for subjects which were considered crude, you would baptise a baby early because you were worried about them dying prematurely at a time when infant mortality was still quite common--Llewee (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 55 Doesn't say it was before the birthday or that George V was his cousin, and I wonder if these details are important.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, this a link to a document with a copy of the sources; https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSbwZByG1f9f0H5euUwVUJTYzJEAP9egtSfSIE3R95fD5jIEveDtyHtpEdJzZ841-dXaGAJlbyrLzyG/pub Llewee (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've now responded to all the issues you mentioned in the review.--Llewee (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tried to increase use of Büschel throughout the article to add more emphasis on the German point of view.--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is fine, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Llewee

edit

Thank to everyone who has recently commented. I haven't been able to respond to many of your comments as I haven't had much time to edit for the past few days. I am likely to be very busy for about another week. I should have more time to work on this article after that. Llewee (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llewee, this has now been open for ten weeks. It has been moving along nicely but has more recently stalled. I note your comment that you should be able to address comments about a week after 23 May. Hopefully this means that we will be seeing responses in the very near future, as it would be a shame for this to time out over "actionable objections have not been resolved" after getting so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llewee, could you confirm that the information requested by Jo-Jo has been sent to them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, I have sent it to them now.--Llewee (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charles_Edward,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha/archive1&oldid=1230659537"