Talk:Frederick the Great/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Vile apes"

I think it would be preferable if someone could provide a transcription of the relevant section of the following source "Przegląd humanistyczny, Tom 22,Wydania 3–6 Jan Zygmunt Jakubowski Państwowe Wydawn. Naukowe, 2000, page 105", which according to a current claim in the article supports the claim that "Polish authors have also argued that already during his early days Frederick detested Poles; thus referring to them in a letter from 1735 as "dirty" and "vile apes."". It is a contentious subject, with lots of possible risks of misinterpretation, undue weight or even deliberate misuse of what the source actually says. As I guess noone here except the editor who added the information has actually read it, or that anyone else even has the slightest chance of reading that source, it would be preferable according to WP:Verifiability that the relevant section be quoted in the citation. Otherwise the claim would have to go as per WP:REDFLAG. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. The thing is, a small number of, let's say, 'very opinionated' users have been at work here. Let them now make their case at talk. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There sure have been a small number of "very opinionated" users at work here. How about we talk about Jakubowski, right after you answer the question - posed a month ago - as to why you're restoring a misrepresentation of a source? Seriously, you had a month to respond. And now you're demanding that others "make their case at talk"? What kind of logic or stance is that?  Volunteer Marek  20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, can you just pick *one* of your usernames - Estlandia or Miacek? Other users who are not as familiar, might not realize that they're talking to the same person. At the very least please use the same name on a particular talk page as you use for reverting for god sake!  Volunteer Marek  20:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I always sign at talk pages as Miacek. I once had my account renamed but later realized it was a mistake. I'll ask at the relevant board if I can rename my account back to Miacek. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Saddhiyama-Frederick the Great was well known from hating Polish people, it's not really something of an exceptional claim. If you wish of course, I can provide more sources and translations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So far your only source for that has been a Polish journal. I have presented other sources that demonstrate Frederick was not concerned with race and even advised to learn Polish language. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

PS. Isn't that ironic that a user disputing the use of English language, University-press-published sources constantly comes up with obscure Polish sources (as he does not explain the reliability of his sources, I dare call them 'obscure') for exceptional claims. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless a source satisfying the WP:REDFLAG policy is provided within 3 days, I shall remove the 'vile apes' part. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The source is perfectly valid and there is absolutely no reason to remove it.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Communist era sources that you keep on adding for exceptional claims [1] are totally unsuitable for that purpose and have to go. See Saddhiyama's comment. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Stanisław Salmonowicz is a Professor of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. Member of the Polish Academy of Learning and History Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He specializes in the history of law and history of the Polish-German relations. I don't see any reason to consider him unreliable.Nor is 1991 a "communist era", and of course Frederick's hatred towards Poles is a well known historic fact, not something exceptional.-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You added sources from 1970s.
″and of course Frederick's hatred towards Poles is a well known historic fact, not something exceptional″ - no, it is not. I was just searching English and German sources at Google Books and did not find anything to that effect. Incidentally, I came across this source which tells that while some of Frederick's generals (!) would compare Poles with apes, the King promoted German-Polish bilingualism. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the additions by Molobo as being WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. You are welcome to add the detailed account of professor Stanisław Salmonowiczins opinions on Frederick in a future Wikipedia article on the professor, that is where they belong, but please remember to leave out the personal praise of him there. That sort of thing can make it look like you have neutrality issues about the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What's undue or pov about this text? That's not a rhetorical question. The source appears to be reliable, the author is an established, respectable academic... what's the problem? That he's Polish writing about Poland-related history? And yet, some editors want to keep a blatantly racist author in the article as a source, just because... he's a nationalist German author writing about Poland-related history? I'm sorry but that's standing things up on their head.

To add. We've had the discussion over pre-1989 Polish sources before several times on WP:RSN. The consensus everytime was that such sources need to be judged on their merits individually and there's no presumption that they should be automatically discarded. Miacek is well aware of this, so his pretending otherwise is dishonest. If you can show that the 1970s sources being used don't meet the criteria for reliability then please do so. Otherwise, back off and stop pov pushing. Volunteer Marek  02:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing of such sort in the source "Due to Polish nationalism outraged at the loss of independence when Poland was partitioned, he is a great villain in Poland"

A extreme POV quote was added "Due to Polish nationalism outraged at the loss of independence when Poland was partitioned, he is a great villain in Poland" and attributed to among others Wojciech Wrzesinski. He writes no such thing, and the quote doesn't fulfill NPOV Rules of Wikipedia. Unless no serious opposition is stated I will remove it in following days and restore more neutral description.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

it is Bömelburg who says Polish nationalism and resentment over loss of independence was and is a very powerful force that shapes Polish views to this day. I did not add Wrzesinski and will remove it. Perhaps you are unaware that some editors here display their own keen Polish nationalism & display a grudge against Frederick that risks adding POV material. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please cease with your personal and ethnic based attacks against me. You have added a highly POV quote to the article that has no place in it. Wrzesinski is a highly valued Polish scholar and perfectly reliable source. Polish sources as explained to you before are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrzesinski is a fine scholar and I removed the reference to him because you objected to it. Polish nationalist anger at the Partition is well known --and indeed Frederick was chiefly responsible so it is no surprise that Poles are taught he was a great villain. (all that is cited to a RS) The Wikipedia rule is that editors are not allowed to display their own POV but reliable scholars are allowed -- it's indeed hard to find a scholar of that era who has no opinion on Frederick. Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I added Wrzesinski, I obviously couldn't have "objected" to him, I object to your false attribution to him of a quote, that as can be seen was completely false. And since you agree that is reliable I will restore him, alongside tweaking the sentences you have added to avoid over-representing the extreme POV you introduced--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC).

While the phrase could certainly be phrased better, do we have any notable examples of how has Polish historiography treated Frederick? Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ritter again

I don't see how Ritter should be presented here alongside other historians. This is an old nationalistic historian who opposed democracy and supported authoritarian rule(and yes as conservative he was opposed to national socialism but he was neither democrat or non-nationalist). Paths of Continuity: Central European Historiography from the 1930s to the 1950s page 114 by Hartmut Lehmann, James Van Horn Melton quotes him as "whose vision of history was narrowed to German interests and of little sympathy to foreign nations, while full of disdain for Catholicism". In addition at the time he wrote about Frederick(early 30s) he also cooperated with radical nationalists and Nazis like Brackmann in writing anti-Polish propaganda. I suggest either removing Ritter and copy his anti-Polish views to article about him, or describing him in detail so the reader is aware of who presents these views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ritter's book cited here in this article was published by Berkeley: University of California Press and that really says something about the merit of this particular work. Some authors say it's the best account on Frederick available in English [2]. Quite unlike your PRL propaganda books. And we already have qualified Ritter in the article as 'a conservative historian', as Britannica does. If there is any doubt concerning some facts sourced to Ritter, please be more concrete and let us discuss such items. As you can see based on a simple Google Scholar search, his book on Frederick the Great is widely cited [3], whilst no-one cites even your recently published sources: [4]. Salmonowicz gets mere 38 English language hits [5] - not really indicative of wide reception outside Poland. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are cherry picking your sources, here is what reliable mainstream historians write:

Hartmut Lehmann, James Van Horn Melton mention that Ritter's vision of history was narrowed to German interests and of little sympathy to foreign nations, while full of disdain for Catholicism

• Michael Burleigh in Germany Turns Eastwards: A Study of Ostforschung, mentions cooperation of Ritter with Nazi activists like Brackmann on work on anti-Polish propaganda noting:

Gerhard Ritter, whose lack of Polish meant ignorance of the Polish 'propaganda literature' plaintively insisted 'I must first of all know about the offensive against which I should direct myself

• Weeks, Gregory (1999). "Ritter, Gerhard A." In Kelly Boyd, ed., The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers mentions that Ritter supported authoritarian government.

• Hamerow, Theodore S. "Guilt, Redemption and Writing German History" writes that Ritter criticised Weimar Republic for "having too much democracy"

• The Quest for the Lost Nation: Writing History in Germany by Sebastian Conrad writes Gerhard Ritter's hagiography of Prussian Germany

• Inventing the Schlieffen Plan: German War Planning 1871-1914

Terence Zuber - 2002However, Moltke's warplanning infact bore no resemblance to the picture presented bythe hagiographies of Hans Delbrück and Gerhard Ritter.

• The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics, and Foreign Policy, 1945-1995 Thomas F. Banchoff University of Michigan Press, 1999 writes that Ritter was against reconciliation with victims of Nazi Germany.

And so on, and so on...Dozens upon dozens of sources can be provided that confirm, contrary to your cliams that Ritter was not reliable modern historian but a nationalist writer that was motivated by ideology of German supremacy. As such he can't be presented as neutral source of information about Poland. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

None of these sources dispute in any way the merit of his biography of Frederick the Great, which according to my reliable source is one of the best Frederick II biographies available [6]. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Believing in German supremacy over others, disliking other nations and cooperating on Nazi propaganda pretty much disqualifies somebody from being a source of info on Poland. Of course personal opinion may be different.It is obvious that such a nationalistic author(who is named by sources as "staunch nationalist") can't be presented as neutral mainstream historian without his views presented to the reader. In any case there are many modern, mainstream(non-Polish even) sources that mention Ritter was hostile to Poland and its history, and justified and defended Partitions basing his views on his nationalist mentors like the infamous Hans Rothfels.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, as long as the only Western sources provided here ascertain that the particular book concerned is one of the finest on the topic, no-one cares what you think about possible biases of the author. No-one is perfectly neutral (believe it or not, even your PRL authors may have been biased), everyone has his own political views, but as long as these have not demonstrably affected their work, such speculations are irrelevant.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you have half a dozen sources above that show clearly that Ritter is not neutral historian that can be presented without attribution, but a nationalist one who engaged in hagiography of Prussian history and anti-Polish propaganda. You have chosen to ignore them.I suggest reading them. Presenting a nationalistic author who engaged in anti-Polish propaganda as neutral source of information about Poland goes against neutrality rules on Wikipedia. Either he needs to be removed or properly presented. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's not a single source claiming there's anything wrong with the particular book cited; in contrast, numerous sources have been provided demonstrating the opposite, viz. that it's a fine source. Period. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure statements like "his vision of history was narrowed to German interests and of little sympathy to foreign nations, while full of disdain for Catholicism by Hartmut Lehmann and James Van Horn Melton in Paths of Continuity: Central European Historiography from the 1930s to the 1950s are pretty clear that he isn't reliable author on history of other nations.Ditto for cooperation with Nazis and writing "hagiography of Prussia". I am sorry but you are simply ignoring sources here to push forward a nationalistic German historian as source for controversial statements about Poland.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Miacek, before you go all arguing with people about sources, can you first explain why you are re-inserting text which *misrepresents* sources back into the article? One can believe that a particular source is reliable or not, but regardless of that I think all neutral minded editors can agree that if a source is used, the text that is based upon it should reflect what the source actually says, no?  Volunteer Marek  02:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly did I 'misrepresent' anything?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to present a Neutral view that covers viewpoints not only from western POV

It needs to integrate not only western authors but also research from Polish specialists studying Frederick's role in Partitions and Poland.In appropriate sections of course. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

use of Polish sources will require a translation--this is the English Wikipedia after all and the topic is Germany. Rjensen (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you will request translation you will have one provided. They will be used regarding treatment and discriminatory measures towards Poland and Poles by Frederick in relevant sections concerning his rule over Poles and Poland, which are almost never covered by western authors.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're demanding translations from Polish sources and questioning the validity of Polish sources simply because they're Polish. At the same time I don't see any translations from the German sources being provided (and let's be honest here, this article is/was borderline sycophantic) nor do I see people questioning the usage of German sources simply because they're German, never mind insisting that obiously sketchy nationalistic sources like Ritter be kept. I believe the term is "double standards". Or, more colorfully, this is some kind of strange "doing history while Polish" accusation. It's not NPOV and it's not encyclopedic. Before some editors go around accusing others of bias they might want to take a long, hard, look in the mirror.  Volunteer Marek  03:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

the Polish sources are of minimal use in the ENGLISH language Wiki. If they have useful statements then let's hear what they say--as MyMoloboaccount suggests. However so far no one has actually quoted any of these books. The actual issue here is a statement (that I added) a)"Due to Polish nationalism outraged at the loss of independence when Poland was partitioned, b) he is a great villain in Poland" There are two parts, and I think that b) is non-controversial. a) is based on a cited source and there is plenty of other support for it if anyone denies the role of the partition in Polish histories. As for "Western POV" that rhetoric is an example of Polish nationalism. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1. "the Polish sources are of minimal use in the ENGLISH language Wiki." - where do you get this from? There's no such policy nor practice. Neither is this how professional historians approach topics, especially since the material is related to Poland. If a historian stated explicitly that "sources of country x, on topic dealing with country x, are of minimal use in an English work" they'd be laughed out of a conference. In fact, Polish sources are essential in an article such as this to ensure WP:NPOV.

2. "the Polish sources are of minimal use in the ENGLISH language Wiki." - if this was somehow valid, then it would apply equally (or, given the present bias in the article even more strongly) to German sources. The fact that you approach each kind in such a completely different way does not bode favorably for a balanced approach.

3. No one's provided quotes from German sources either. Also noteworthy is how old some of the sources used are and the fact that they tend to be popular works.

4. Indeed you haven't provided the actual quote for the statement you wish to insert. Your phrasing is highly POV with lots of scare phrases; "Polish nationalism", "outraged", "great villain". Usually historians don't write in such tones so this raises immediate red flags.

5. "As for "Western POV" that rhetoric is an example of Polish nationalism. " - No, you calling that "an example of Polish nationalism" is biased rhetoric. How can an intention to balance the article with sources relevant to the subject be "an example of nationalism"? Rather, you seem to be purposefully constructing a strawman so that you can reject some sources out of hand. Here's a newsflash: not every source which approaches a subject in a way different than German (or even English) sources is "nationalistic". You've constructed this strange world where German (and English) sources - even when they explicitly push neo-colonial or nationalist narratives (like Ritter) - are automatically exempt from scrutiny over reliability and bias while Polish sources are immediately rejected out of hand. You don't see what's wrong with this picture? If this was an article about Jim Crow South, which consisted mostly of sources written by white Southerners (or, say, sympathetic, conservative Englishmen) and someone wanted to put in sources by African-American authors, would you start yelling about "Black nationalism"? No? Then why is that okay here?

 Volunteer Marek  06:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what were talking about is a book by Wrzesinski. The problem is that no one who has access to this book has said what Wrzesinski actually says about Polish views regarding Frederick the Great and the Partition issue. So just what is his argument anyway? Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

use of Polish sources will require a translation--this is the English Wikipedia after all and the topic is Germany. Rjensen

You use freely German sources here and in other articles, including sections and statements about Poland without any translations and reservations about their use. There is no reason why Polish sources should be subject to more scrutiny then German ones Rjensen. Also the article here is about ruler of multi-ethnic territories, not about Germany which was much later state and is completely different topic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC).

The article is about Frederick. the issue now is what does Wrzesinski have to say about perceptions of Frederick in Poland?? Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So why have you stated that Polish sources need translation because this is English wiki, but used freely German sources without translation Rjensen?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All the sources from German historians have been summarized into English (Angelow, Bömelburg, Mann) or translated (Ranke, Ritter, Clausewitz). Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No they haven't. Where's Bömelburg for example?  Volunteer Marek 

23:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

he's at note 5 where his position is summarized in English. Rjensen (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that he's in the references. I wouldn't be asking about him if he wasn't mentioned in the article. But I don't see neither a "summary" of his position nor do I see the relevant quote being provided. Volunteer Marek  10:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And so have been Polish sources here. Also please don't involve the nationalist Ritter here who can't be treated on the same level as mainstream historians(see above discussion).

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Besides Polish authors once can also add Conquest : how societies overwhelm by David Day published by Oxford University Press, 2008. The book has a section on oppressive measures and attitude of Frederick the Great towards Poles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Gerhard Ritter has the best book in English on Frederick the Great (say scholars like Weigley & Sheehan) and is certainly mainstream--indeed he was an honorary member of the American Historical Association (along with three or four other Germans). Russell Weigley says Ritter's biography is "The best introduction to Frederick the Great and indeed to European warfare in his time." Russell Frank Weigley (2004). The Age of Battles: The Quest for Decisive Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo. Indiana U.P. p. 550. Rjensen (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Ritter is fine for military history, his description and analysis of battles and European warfare. That's not what we're talking about here. Volunteer Marek  10:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Great that we three at least agree on this point. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since we seem now to agree that Ritter is not fine for views on Poland, I will remove him if nobody disagrees with objective argumentation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of modern and reliable sources(including published by Oxford University Press) by Rjensen under the headline "tweaks"

Here [7] Rjensen removed a whole lot of modern and reliable sources without any explanation at all naming his edit as "tweaks". I will assume good faith and that it was a simple editing error on his part.There was no objective reason for that deletion--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Friedrich on the religious issue

I've tagged [8] the sentence attributed to this source [9] by Karin Friedrich.

The source is fine. But a quick read of what's available makes it clear that the source is saying something else than the included text pretend it says. The article text says: " Prussia and Russia supported the resistance of Protestants and Orthodox who demanded religious liberty from the Roman Catholic rulers of Poland." What Friedrich says is:

"...When the Sejm of 1736 confirmed these laws against non-Catholics, Poland-Lithuania seemed, at last, to have joined the rest of Enlightenment Europe, where confesional discrimination and harassment were widespread" (my emphasis)

So what this says is that the growing religious intolerance in Poland-Lithuania *only began to approach* the level found in "Enlightenment Europe", like Prussia. Somehow this got twisted into a story of these "enlightened" generous Prussian and Russian leaders supporting a noble cause by helping religious dissidents in Poland-Lithuania. Friedrich goes on to say:

"It was the intense politicization of religious issues during the years before the first partition and Russia's and Prussia's hostile rhetoric which marked the Commonwealth as a particularly intolerant, Catholic environment"

What this says is that yes, religious issues polarized the country in the run up to the first partition. But then it also says that it was Russia and Prussia which exploited this polarization in their propaganda. The original text that was in the article, "Similarly, the Russian and Prussian propaganda machines tried to further the resistance of the so-called dissidents against the Catholic majority of Poland." was a much closer representation of the source (although I'd remove the "so-called") than the present text.  Volunteer Marek  11:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Friedrich also goes on to argue that the demands of the dissidents - like that of the Thorn/Torun burghers - were political, not religious in nature.  Volunteer Marek  11:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote it. Religious conflict was a major theme in the history of E Europe. Fact is the Poland's Catholic establishment had set out to harass the Protestants and force the Orthodox to covert to Uniate churches (which were loyal to Rome but used Orthodox-like rituals). Calling the Protestants and Orthodox "the so-called dissidents" is degrading and represents heavy-handed POV in favor of Polish-Catholic-nationalism. (I am Catholic myself I might add and grew up in a mostly Polish Catholic community & then went to Notre Dame, so I'm especially sensitive to religious issues, especially where they overlap with politics as in this case.) Rjensen (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, we should take out "so-called". However your rewrite totally misrepresents Friedrich who 1) says that the level of intolerance in PLC was *only approaching that already found in Western Europe* (hence the "Eastern" in your edit summary " a very serious issue throughout the history of Eastern Europe" is very inappropriate) and 2) says that a good chunk of this "image" was "Russia's and Prussia's hostile rhetoric". Completely different picture then your rewrite. Volunteer Marek  11:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a biography of Frederick, so discussions of religious battles in Britain for example are not useful. (In Britain religious tensions led to a full scale civil war in mid-17th century that is comparable to the late 18th-century Bar uprising perhaps, so in that sense Poland "caught up" with Britain.) The religious persecution of the dissenters was a real event over many decades in Poland and was not a pseudo-event created by a propaganda machine. When Russia demanded an end to it the Bar revolt began and total anarchy erupted in Poland. Rjensen (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about Britain, we're talking about Friedrich who explicitly compares Poland-Lithuania to Western Europe. And we're talking about accurately relaying what that source says. Volunteer Marek  13:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole discussion kind of misses the point that Frederick was hardly religiously tolerant himself-he engaged in persecution of Polish catholics in 1764 in Silesia where marriages in Polish were banned and after partition in Poland where Polish catholics were taxed higher than non-catholics and where he plundered catholic monasteries.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that he was protecting Protestants who were under attack in Poland. He dramatically upgraded the Catholic schools in West Prussia by bringing in Jesuit teachers who were being expelled from other countries, but whom he invited & protected. the Schroeder citation (p 19) is to one half-sentence that deals with the situation after the 3rd partition--long after Frederick's death. It should be in the history of Poland article not here. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added sources on what his real intentions were.Based on modern reliable sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Davies was manipulated. He states something completely different in the book

Davies says they intervened because Poland "had denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1718 Davies says no such thing. I have the book right in front of me. There is no such sentence and there is no such claim. The only sentence were such words are used is one where he says that despotic Prussia and Russia could never achieved such freedoms as in Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The exact words by Davies are there as google proves; see this google search on p 514 vol 1 of Davies He says the long Polish tradition of religious toleration ended by 1718. Rjensen Rjensen (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And the sentence right before that? What does that say?

And the sentence right after that? What does that say?

Please stop manipulating and misrepresenting sources.

Please stop POV pushing.

It's not like this stuff is hard to verify or anything.

 Volunteer Marek  04:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who actually cares to check the source and see what it *really* says, not what Rjensen is pretending it says, the text is available here: [10]. Volunteer Marek  04:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Full quote is: "If in the subsequent period the Poles are judged to have contributed to the catastrophe themselves, it was more by their desperate efforts to ecape from ANarchy, than from their supposed desire to wallow in it. It should have been clear to al that the despots of St.Petersburg and Berlin, who denied most civil liberties to their own subjects, could never be the genuine champions of any "Golden Freedom in Poland" The same sort of hypocrisy was current in matters of religion. It is true that the Roman Catholic establishment of the Republic, despite the long tradition of toleration and freedom of worship, had denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1917. In this, Polish practices resembled that of Great Britain or Holland, and until bishops were goaded into retaliation in the 1770s, had been far more tolerant that that of Russia, whose visiting armies had invariably inflicted forcible conversion on the Republic's Uniates. I am afraid that Rjensen engaged in clear case of misleading readers as to what author actually stated. This is particularly worrying as he is very active and often supports his controversial views by using sources. If he did that with Davies I am worried that others might have been falsely attributed as well. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Davies says that″Catholic establishment [...] denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1718″. Where's the manipulation?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 23:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And the sentence right before that? What does that say? It's right above.

And the sentence right after that? What does that say? It's right above.

Please stop manipulating and misrepresenting sources.

Please stop POV pushing.

Also, Davies says "Catholic establishment", not "Poland". That's an obvious difference. Volunteer Marek  00:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

the point is that Prussia and Russia were protecting co-religionists who were under attack in Poland. The government of Poland was unable and unwilling to stop it and the provocation led to partition. Freedom of religion inside Poland was the issue (not freedom of religion in other countries). Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

the point is that Prussia and Russia were protecting co-religionists who were under attack in Poland. - the *real* point is that that is not AT ALL what the source says!!! They say almost exactly the opposite. They blatantly, obviously, clearly, in plain English which a child could understand say that they didn't give fib about their "co-religionists" but were trying to destabilize the country. That they were engaging in hypocritical politics. That they were cynical. Etc. Etc. Etc. You are either severely deficient in simple reading comprehension or you're lying about what the sources say. And strangely enough, believe that we cannot read these sources for ourselves. That just doesn't work. Volunteer Marek  04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Religious issues were central to the Poland, whether or not there was freedom of religion elsewhere. As J. T. Lukowski says in "The Papacy, Poland, Russia and Religious Reform, 1764-8," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 39#1 (1988) p 66: "The tensions between reformers and conservatives, compounded by large-scale Russian military and diplomatic intervention, were to plunge Poland into ungovernability and civil war by March 1768 and to drag it inexorably towards the First Partition. Religious issues were to play a crucial role in the collapse of the reforms of the mid-1760s." Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about JT Lukowski. We're talking about your gross misrepresentation of Davies and Lewitter. Maybe Lukowski says one thing. Maybe he says another. At this point, who knows? How about we clear up this mess we got here right now before you start introducing - and possibly misrepresenting - some new sources. Volunteer Marek  04:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Davies was quoted as saying Poland discriminated against Protestants and orthodox. In my opinion he really mean to say that happened. He said it in the context of explaining why the first partition happened. Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Davies quote is provided above. It says what it says, which is different from what you think/pretend it says. What "he really mean to say" (sic) in your opinion is irrelevant.  Volunteer Marek  14:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Davies' quote I can access is:

It is true that the Roman Catholic establishment of the Republic, despite the long tradition of toleration and freedom of worship, had denied the religious minorities, Orthodox and Protestant, full political rights since 1718. In this, Polish ... Chernyshev, the Vice-President of the War College, expressed this view when, at the new Empress Catherine's council called to discuss the death of the King 514

. I see no misrepresentation here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And you're doing it again! Blatantly. The whole quote is above. You're skipping the sentence right before the part you quote which states: It should have been clear to all that the despots of St.Petersburg and Berlin, who denied most civil liberties to their own subjects, could never be the genuine champions of any "Golden Freedom in Poland" The same sort of hypocrisy was current in matters of religion. Are you unable to access this part of the quote? Does your version of the book leave it out? Does Google preview on your computer blank out that portion? It doesn't on mine. Why aren't you able to read it then?

And then you try and get sneaky with the "In this, Polish ... Chernyshev". Gee. I wonder what the "..." is doing there? Hmmm, it couldn't be another bad faithed stripping of relevant context, could it? And since when was Chernyshev Polish? Let's see. The full quote is right above. Hence anyone who's not insanely lazy can see what the "..." you purposefully left out says. It says: In this, Polish practices resembled that of Great Britain or Holland, and ... had been far more tolerant that that of Russia, whose visiting armies had invariably inflicted forcible conversion on the Republic's Uniates."

(see what I did with my own little "..." in there? Except when I do it it doesn't fundamentally alter the meaning of the paragraph. When you do it, it does.) Oh. And note the part about the fact that it was Russia who was engaged in forcibly converting Polish Uniates to Orthodoxy. So why did Rjensen put in the text that it was Poland which was forcibly converting Uniates to Catholicism?

I'm sorry about all the bolding above, but the only AGF reason I can come up with here is that some people are having eyesight problems, so I just wanted to make it easier for you to read the relevant parts.

 Volunteer Marek  15:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is very clear from reading the full context of the quote that it is being quote tendentiously and out of context if used to say that "religious freedom" was objectively the cause of the invasion. The argument of the book is clearly that it may have been used as a pretext , but that that can not realistically be considered the actual cause.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

reputation reestablished

Current article text says "Since reunification in 1990 his popularity in Germany has been reestablished". It is cited to this source [11], I think. I'm not seeing the support for that claim in the source, though maybe I'm missing it. What I do see is that it says: "Doch schon bald nach Herstellung der deutschen Einheit ebbte die Begeisterung für den Hohenzollernkönig wieder ab" - "But soon after German unification enthusiasm for the Hohenzollern King died down again ". Which means that even if his "reputation has been reestablished" (which is dubious) even that was short lived.

Removing. Volunteer Marek  00:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

reflist problem

I am currently attempting to correct the backlog of pages with reflist errors and just came to this page but I can't seem to figure out the problem. There is a {{reflist}} already placed and I did not find any < ref > tags placed incorrectly. Could someone assist? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Any notability to his writings?

   At the risk of personal embarrassment, i'll ask that someone comment on whether he is noted for what he wrote on military strategy: Is our article on him incomplete in failing to mention any titles by him?
  (The embarrassment part reflects the impetus for my question: i quote from the SF novel Ender's Shadow, p. 211 of the "First mass market edition" of Dec. 2000, where a "Command School" instructor says of the title character, one of the students,

"I should have guessed. He picks up the voice of the strategists he's been reading. Or their translators. Though I don't know what will happen now that he's he's [sic] been reading Frederick and Bulow in the original -- French and German...."

Not a WP:RS!)
  The char's presumably reading Frederick the Great (master of Sanssouci) in French and Dietrich Heinrich von Bülow in German.
I did find on first try FREDERICK THE GREAT "MILITARY INSTRUCTIONS" and Frederick The Great On The Art Of War Paperback by Jay Luvaas; are Card's characters referring to French commentaries on what Fritz did, rather than any wisdom he put on paper (in French as he would apparently have naturally chosen, rather than German)? Or should we suppose that Card is exercising literary license to imagine Fritz having left extended 1st-hand testimony for the ages?
--Jerzy•t 18:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

His military writings were influential. Luvaas says, "He was also a brilliant military thinker whose observations arose from extensive battlefield experience. This volume [edited by Luvaas] presents a balanced selection from Frederick's writings on strategy, tactics, and mobility; the problems of logistics and etc " Rjensen (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

languages Frederick spoke (or not)

re:

Frederick spoke French, Italian, English, Spanish and Portuguese; he also understood Latin, ancient and modern Greek, and Hebrew

German speaker here--the above should be checked for accuracy. German Wikipedia mentions that he spoke German, French, and had received Latin lessons. He had intimate knowledge of German literature, which he did nod esteem anyway, and his spoken German is rumoured to have been somewhat funny. As with most European aristocrats of the time, French was his first and preferred language. Too lazy to find quotes and sources, sorry. --tickle me 07:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

We have no source stating he spoke so many languages; I say we remove it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag

The article lacks basic info about the rather differentiated reception, either with regard to the post WWII developement - East Germany changed its derogatory image of Frederick after 1980 significantly, and the role of the King in the West after 1948 till today is left out completely. Fuerthermore, the role of Frederick pre 1870 was much more differentiated as well, e.g. with rather harsh critisism about his role in the Austria–Prussia rivalry. Serten 08:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have access to fresh information please add it--don't accuse editors of being biased. You have not cited any sources for your personal opinions Rjensen (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Point is, the information lacking is not very fresh, but rather old. Honeckers reinstallment of Frederick II rider statue Unter den Linden start of the 1980ies, Helmut Kohl's role with the reburial in Sanssouci 1991 or the Preussenjahr 2001 festivities have been decades ago, triggered major debates and have been topic of thousands of publications, exhibitions and studies. Nothing in the article.Major scholars like de:Hans-Peter Schwarz (Historiker), Heinrich August Winkler Thomas Nipperdey are not quoted, not even easter German scholar de:Ingrid Mittenzweis ground breaking biography is included, instead the article relies mostly on the fringy works of a Mr. Robert B. Asprey, a military author with a funny hat, far from academia. Its insofar a little bit more than private opinion and the tag is highly appropriate. Serten 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Serten misunderstands the POV rules--he has no complaints that allege. POV -- he suggests new scholarship on some minor points re remembrance that he believes should be added, for which the solution is for Serten to update the article. If he does not do so then it's unlikely anyone will Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, an article about a major figure in German history which leaves out the complete reception history since 1945, does not quote the basic German research and uses funny-hat-hobbyists for a dozen citations? I don't see a problem with a tag per se, but the current one might be more specific. I wont work on any bad article I encounter btw. Serten 06:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Gay Royalty"

Why is Friedrich categorized as "Gay Royalty"?2601:804:8401:E4A0:A5D6:5E2A:1C81:4CE3 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Read the article. It describes, with sources, a homosexual relationship with Peter Karl Christoph Keith. Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What are German names bastardized?

Why does the article call him "Frederick"? And his predecessor and successor "Frederick William"?

It is an insult to the German People. There is no other group of people that have their names changed into English...112.198.83.123 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's sweet of you to defend our language from all the way in the Phillipines, but to be fair, Germans are doing exactly the same thing: Elizabeth II is Elisabeth, her father is Georg, his brother is Eduard. That's just the way it is. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Having German names Englicised here is extrememly misleading and plain stupid to the point of harming Wikipedia itself. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.172.181 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

So ist das Leben. Sca (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I came here looking for his full name in German. I assume he had more of a name than just "Frederick", but I can't seem to find anything on the web that has full name. Does anyone have a source? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

He was known as Friedrich II aus Preußen, or as he later became known, Friedrich der Große. He was the child of König Friedrich Wilhelms I and his wife Sophie Dorothea von Hannover. Georg I of Great Britain was his grandfather on his mother's side and his grandmother on her side was Sophie Dorothea von Braunschweig-Lüneburg. Since he was royalty, he carried the name of his father and the lands to which he was an heir. Not sure what else there is to tell you. In terms of sources for the German name, here is a reliable yet older one. Thomas Carlyle, Friedrich der Grosse; ausgabe in einem Bande, besorgt und eingeleitet von Karl Linnebach (Berlin : M. Warneck, 1910), pp. 13–18.[12]-- Hope this helps. Obenritter (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Denmark

I don't think I ever read Anderson, I suppose the mistake is not by me. It looks as if it was already there before 19 June 2018. Is it online?

• I added this on the Gottorp question: According to the Anglo-Prussian Convention, Frederick received from 1758 till 1762 yearly ₤670,000 British subsidies, stopped by George III of England and the Parliament of Great Britain when Frederick allied with Peter III of Russia, who planned to solve the Gottorp question and attacking Danish Holstein in 1762 after the death of Frederick Charles, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön.[60][61][62][63][64] During the war Frederick devalued the Prussian coin five times in order to finance the war; debased coins were produced (with the help of Veitel Heine Ephraim and Daniel Itzig, mintmasters in Leipzig) and spread outside Prussia: in Saxony, Poland, and Kurland.[65][66][67]

I was in the assumption someone tried to delete it, when I saw Denmark. Sorry.Taksen (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC) W

Yes, the cited page is available from Google books. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

I note a number of places, such as the beginning of sentences and proper names are in lower case. Since I have been told multiple times not to make changes without proper citation, maybe someone with credentials in English can fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Popularity

According to calculations he is regarded as one of the greatest military leaders, unfortunately very little is known or spoken of him in our world. Fjgdh5 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)\Fjgdh5 (talk)

Suggested :)

This article would benefit from being tighter and shorter; its over-written and too long for an Encyclopedia. Makes it hard to read - I'll pick a section and have a go, then see what you think.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Katte's execution

Hans Hermann von Katte was executed for his role in Frederick's attempt to flee the country. But in the section on Frederick's sexual orientation, we have this sentence:

"Frederick's relationship with Hans Hermann von Katte was also believed by King Frederick William to be romantic, a suspicion which enraged him, and he had von Katte put to death."

The way that sentence is written, it implies that Katte was executed because he was Frederick's lover. He was not. He was executed as an accessory to desertion, which was the charge against the Crown Prince. Both of them were serving officers in the Prussian army, the King's army, and to flee the country was desertion. That was punishable by death.

I think this needs to be rewritten to make it clear.

Best regards, TheBaron0530 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Article should be heavily revised in tone

I am no professional historian, and I feel I don't have enough knowledge to actively re-write this article. However, it is way too positive, and there should be a review of its tone. It seems written, in parts, by fanboys. The article throughout supports the idea that negative perceptions of him today come from the Nazis' association with him. It may be, but the Nazis did not choose their symbols randomly. He himself started some of the bloodiest wars of his times, with no respect for international law and diplomacy, in a way that was shocking even by 18th century standards. He was extreme in his militarism, his expansionism, he had the original idea for the partition of Poland... The article does not need to be negative, but at the moment it is excessively positive. As one example among many, the idea that serious intellectuals would see the revolutions in France and America as ""belated" attempts to "catch up with Prussia"" is completely ludicrous.RegisHastur17 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

-- Evidence his wars were outside the norm of the time and that other nations were shocked? Neither wars for land nor wars of aggression were particularly shocking to anyone. His wars were embedded in the greater context of the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War, conflicts several other European powers were engaged in beside Prussia for their own spoils. The partition of Poland was not only driven by Prussia, but also to a large degree by Russia. Also case in point that Prussia out of all European powers spent the fewest years in a state of war under Frederique the Great depsite Prussia's reputation. By all means do not write him as some glowing humanist, but what you imply is also very biased. 93.104.9.236 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Seven Years War

The Seven Years War portion of the article contains the following problematic section:

"Russia wanted to occupy Prussia forever but the British embassy organized the scheme to kill Peter III to protect Denmark."

I don't have evidence to hand to dispute this but it is my understanding that it is uncertain if Peter was assassinated much less that the supposed conspiracy was masterminded by the "British Embassy". Also it is unclear to me why given Peter's pro Prussian attitude he would want to "occupy Prussia forever" much less what that has to do with protecting Denmark.

Additionally, earlier in the paragraph the following was stated:

"Peter immediately promised to end the Russian occupation of East Prussia and Pomerania, returning them to Frederick."

This seems to conflict with the idea that "Russia wanted to occupy Prussia forever"

Peter wished to attack Denmark to resume control of the House of Holstein. So that's what it has to do with defending Denmark, also Russia wanting to occupy Prussia forever was old British intelligence from the previous reign of Elizabeth of Russia, who had very recently died. She was against Prussia and Peter was a Prussian sympathizer, so he reversed her military policy. So that's the explanation. Chariotsacha (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Prussia (region), Silesia (Śląsk), the kayak/car trip to East Prussia A.D. 1935

• Of course, region called Prussia was not a "large part of Poland"! Gosh, was I this sleepy two days ago? If I caused this horrible misunderstanding (and it looks like I did), I apologize. Region called Gdańsk Pomerania was a "large part of Poland", region called Royal Prussia was. Latter region of Kingdom of Prussia called West Prussia was 1772 inhabitted mostly by Poles (rural areas, szlachta folwarks, aristocracy latifundia) and Germans (cities). The Poles had a nickname for Frederick the Great ... wait for it ...  : Stary Fryc!. The nickname was, obvio, a translation of the German one.
• First of all: I am a devoted supporter of the Silingi theory (or is it even already a proven fact?)! No non-NPOV from me! However, there is another (long) proven fact: West Slavic lands (stretching roughly from ((Elbe|Elbe (Łeba) to Bug, from Baltic to Carpathians) were heavily fortified from the outsiders such as the Balt Prussia, Rus', Slovakia, Czechia, Germanic tribes etc. There were never any heavy fortifications between the lands of Slavic Silesians and Polans. There was also never any known war between the two or conquests of each others' lands. I'm sure you don't need sources or references for these facts, but just in case - here is one: Paweł Jasienica "Polska Piastów".
• Unfortunately I have go to work right now, so I'll be brief. The requested source: Melchior Wańkowicz "Na tropach Smętka".

Gosh, I wish you and I could have a chance to hang out together one day. No booze, no weed, no cards, no cheap women, just history, books and humorous discussions on who's "POV-ish, who's not.
Space Veteran (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Royal Prussia was only a very small region within the Pol.-Lith. Commonwealth, Prussia annexed much more, but that was not the reason to be called "King of Prussia". It's misleading to connect the annexation of "large parts" of Poland and the changing of the title.

I'm not going to start a discussion about the history of Silesia, whoever is interested might read the related article. This article is about Frederick and his role in 1742, your addition is overly detailed and irrelevant for Frederick's life.

A 1930s book published by Melchior Wańkowicz is not a WP:RS. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"I owe, I owe; so off to work I go .. .". But you're still in luck, although I'll be brief again. The book mentioned by me above was published in 1988. "Large parts, small parts" - that, even upon first hearing, doesn't sound right or objective. "Vital", "crucial", "the richest", "most urban" etc. - are each and all more truthful IMHO. If you, in turn, are interested in the history of Silesia, you might read the article after I'm done with it. (Or should I say: "after we are done removing most of the non-NPOV material from it"). I would like to close with an old Polish proverb: "Even the most NPOV is only another POV". Happy editing! Space Veteran (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please try to a) reach WP:Consensus and b) discuss content. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You respond to my detailed, educated and deep arguments mostly by referring me to related (IYO) Wikipedia Policies. I have read them dutifully and still need some guidance from you and/or others on the following issues: a) do I need consensus to change a comma (,) into a semicolon (;) ? b) do I need consensus to discard a soccer player's favorite food as unnecessary information? c) do I need consensus (hopefully not unanimous) to provide a Polish nickname for a ruler of vast amount of Poles (inhabiting exempli gratia Silesia, Pomerania, West Prussia and East Prussia); hasn't it already been covered by the famous Danzig/Gdańsk vote?
Happy editing! Space Veteran (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hallo! Tempus fugit and there is no sign of you. I hope you're OK. Anyway, I reverted your edit per my explanations above. Space Veteran (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"historically Polish Silesia"

In 1740, Silesia had been part of the Bohemian crown lands for some three-and-half centuries. In what way were they historically Polish in the context of Frederick's attack and annexation?

Silesia was a rich Austrian province and Frederick had a strong desire to revenge himself against Austria, which obviously he did. My suggested change would be to decribe it thus: "attacked and annexed the rich Austrian province of Silesia."

Any comments on this proposed revision? Karl Bildungshunger1965 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Four-and-a-half centuries is probably the correct period. Karl Bildungshunger1965 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo changed

Hi, I was wondering why the photo was changed to the other one here, seeing as the portrait by Graff is the more popular and more recognizable one to most people. Was wondering because the new photo used is not a very commonly used photo of Frederick the Great. --CIN I&II (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@CIN I&II: Hello! The portrait was changed not too long ago for good reason, the newer portrait is a portrayal of the king which is generally assumed to have been done in person. It is dated to the middle of his reign (1763) rather than mere years before death (Graff's portrait is dated to 1781.) Which as is a more of an accurate portrayal of his appearance during most of his great achievements. Graff's portrait is still featured prominently, but as a header, a portrait which is more in tune with his prime time is a little more suitable. Chariotsacha (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotsacha: Ah okay, thank you for clarifying. I was wondering a bit on it just now that you explain it more it makes more sense. Thank you for the clarification. --CIN I&II (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @CIN I&II:, The issue of the paintings of Frederick illustrates the nature of this article. There are many Frederick's and each person seems to focus on a different aspect of his life. The portraits are a good example of this. In the last few months, three portraits- all of which have versions in the article- have rotated. Graff's picture, which may be the most iconic, is the one that's been up the most frequently. A few months ago, Graf's was replaced with Camphausen's (which is in the article). An editor recently replaced Graf's with Ziesenis's. As Chariotsacha mentioned, the reason was that it the only one painted from life. Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's a more accurate representation of Frederick during his life, then I'm happy. However, I don't like the dimensions of the image and the lack of elegance to the painting, compared with Graf's, whose portrait is more indicative of a king than Camphausen's, even if its later in his life. Photos of historical rulers on several Wikipedia bios keep being changed this past year, which probably indicates too many people with too much time on their hands this past year, so just making sure it's well meant. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yourlocallordandsavior: It seems that the pictures- Graff's, Ziesenis's, and Camphausen's- rotate in the infobox depending on the aspect of Frederick each particular editor thinks is most relevant. I haven't been directly involved in the infobox/image changes and don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Maybe others can weigh in.

In terms of the images, two of them have been drastically cropped. Zeisenis's portrait is a crop of a full-length portrait (see link here), and I think Camphausen's is an oil on cardboard study for an equestrian portrait (here's a link to a copyrighted version of Camphausen's complete painting from the Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation Berlin-Brandenburg website) And, of course all three are idealizations: rare is the painting that captures his nose as revealed in his his death mask.

In the end, I think good arguments could be made for either Graff or Ziesenis in the infobox. (My least favorite candidate for the infobox is Camphausen's, but I'm sure an argument can be made for that one too.) What I've come to appreciate about Ziesenis's picture in the infobox is that from my perspective it provides an image of Frederick II that seems more human and a little less the military ruler. However, Graff's is often considered the most iconic image, so it is appropriate too. Whatever is decided, it'd be great if the article could have all three images. I would ask, however, that if you prefer Graff's portrait in the infobox, please move Ziesenis's version into the article where Graf's currently is. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I didn't even know about the nose thing personally. Even though I kind of prefer Graff's portrait, I'm sort of inclined to hear out Chariotsacha's reasoning for the portrait change. I myself don't really like changing portraits of famous people on Wikipedia articles, especially those that have been around forever such as Graff's portrait of Frederick II being the featured portrait on this article, unless there's good reason to do so. Would it be possible to move Graff's portrait of Frederick down to the "Later years and death" section, if Ziesenis' portrait is kept at the top? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Yourlocallordandsavior! Funny you should mention moving Graff's portrait to later years and death, that's where I initially put it after Ziesenis' portrait was moved to top priority. As I thought it would be far more appropriate considering when the portrait was dated. I am unhelpfully ambivalent about which portrait should be the prominent one, but my philosophy is that accuracy should always trump notability, for example. The famous line "Et tu brute" is notable, but not accurate. Ziesenis' portrait is as previously mentioned painted from life during a sit-in painting session during the height of Frederick's life rather than very close to the end. It's a more accurate portrait of Frederick when Frederick was really acting upon his kingdom. If anything, perhaps Wikipedia promoting this portrait could help it become more notable! Regardless of my previous reasoning, the Graff portrait is certainly good and I'm fine with either portrait being prominent, but I am strongly against Camphausen's as it was not painted during his life and is overly romantic. Rather than realistic. Chariotsacha (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yourlocallordandsavior: Sounds like you, Chariotsacha and I good with keeping [[Buidhe's choice to put Ziesenis's portrait in the infobox for now. If you think the Graff portrait would be better later, please move it to where you think it would work without sandwiching other images and perhaps alternating portraits with other images. It might take a bit of juggling. Wtfiv (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

One last suggestion, would it be okay if I were to place Pesne's 1739 portrait of Frederick as Crown Prince where Graff's portrait currently is? As that neatly correlates with that section detailing his early reign? Alternatively, there's also Matthieu's portrait of Frederick that can be used for this section. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say give different versions a try and see what you think works. Just the following suggestions: keep things from getting crowded and I think there are enough portraits already: so see which you like best, Pesne or Matthieu, and pick. If others disagree, I'm sure they'll jump in. Wtfiv (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yourlocallordandsavior: I modified your choices a bit. I replaced the younger Pesne with the one you chose. It makes more sense in my opinion, as the Crown Prince portion addresses issues after his childhood. I moved the Waffenrock image into the area about the military, and moved the Graff article up into administrative changes so it didn't crowd the other two images (the grave site and the Nazi poster). This still leaves the Graff, with the older Frederick, as the last portrait. Wtfiv (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv: Thanks alot! Though one thing I find peculiar on this article is the repetition of portraits depicting Frederick in military garb, a few of them with his tricorn. Its obvious that Frederick the Great is known for his military feats, but I feel like removing one of them would give some of the other, more unique, portraits to have a chance, or to reduce the clutter of portraits. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yourlocallordandsavior: I agree. Personally, I think the Waffenrock could go without too much loss, as it is similar to the Graff. I'll leave it to you though. I do appreciate that someone put in the Therbush. Though that one is slightly awkward, I think that it was painted by a woman of Polish descent who knew Frederick personally is interesting in its own right, and it is well placed, I think near the issue of Poland in the article. Also, Frederick comes across a lot less of a military person. As you can see I also added another picture from Menzel. I felt giving more a sense of the "enlightenment" side of Frederick was indeed needed, so having him sitting with his intellectual friends seemed appropriate. Wtfiv (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv: I agree, I like them all though. Probably better for others to decide than me on this. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frederick the Great/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CIN I&II (talk · contribs) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article for it's nomination of good article. The only link I have to the editing of it I believe is just asking a question in the talk page.

CIN I&II Thank you for taking on this review! In addition to the high rate of hits per day, this article has many watchers and a number of thoughtful editors, such as . So, hopefully we'll be able to get this in Good Article shape quickly. Wtfiv (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv Yes, it looks like a really good article (not using the term in a wikipedia sense), so I'll make sure to keep reviewing it as a priority. Also sorry for not looking at it much yesterday, I had a Euro History test.

CIN I&II No problem, and no hurry. I hope the test went well for you! Wtfiv (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The references of the article are really well made, although 102 I think should have a bit more specification that it is not the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica in case someone might misread that, just it's okay without that. Honestly the references are all really good and well made. --CIN I&II (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll fix that, thankfully Wtfiv made those tidy references. So it should be no trouble!Chariotsacha (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

CIN I&II For reference 102, would it be okay to keep it as is? The citation uses the standard Wikipedia template {{EB1911}} template, so the format is automated and standardized for the Wikisource 1911 version of Encyclopedia Britannica. Wtfiv (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated Review request as (talk) may be engaged in other obligations.

Wtfiv Yeah I'm saying it is okay, just was saying that I got a bit confused with it. --CIN I&II (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

CIN I&II Thanks! I can definitely see your point. The good thing though is the 1911 is out of copyright and fully accessible. Wtfiv (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good thing. It did take me a moment to realise it though, so I thought I should include that in the review. --CIN I&II (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Pause on Review

CIN I&II (talk) may have had other commitments, and may not be able to review this page. So I reset the request. I did let CIN I & II know that we're more than willing to continue the shared project if time allows Wtfiv (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frederick the Great/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More shortly. Tim riley talk 13:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

First thought after initial read-through: you need to decide whether the article uses English or American spelling. At the moment it is a mixture of both, which plainly will not do. We have favour, favoured and favourite mixed in with favor, favorable, favored and favorite and so on, and we must standardise on one or the other, and also on either English or American spelling of baptised, center, enamored, endeavor(s), fulfillment, honor, honored, honours, labor, kilometres, leveled, neighboring, paneling, rivaled, rumors, skeptic, skillful, etc. Strictly, you should establish which spelling was the first to be used for this article and stick to it or else seek a consensus for a change, but I doubt if anyone will object if you take a view and go for one or the other. I suggest you put a quick note on the article talk page, leaving it a couple of days and then, unless anyone objects, which I doubt, applying whichever variety of spelling you prefer, as long as it's consistent throughout.

Second thought: who was Flannagan in the lead? Sabotage by some tiresome little schoolboy I imagine.

I'll put the review on hold while you deal with the orthography, as above. Tim riley talk 14:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Now I think about it, my comments, above, will be automatically transcluded to the article talk page, and so I think you can reasonably treat that as adequate notice of a proposal to standardise on BrE or AmE. Give it a couple of days, though, to give anyone with views time to comment. Tim riley talk 14:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I recommend British English, since it's a European topic; I've gone ahead and boldly run the Engvar script on it, since, as you say, there was no consensus previously. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

FIY, there is no MOS:TIES for continental European countries. This generally applies only if the subject is actually from an English speaking country or lived there. (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose

The prose is generally good enough to meet the GA standard (criterion 1a and b), in my view, but I offer some suggestions, entirely optional so far as this first batch is concerned at least, for improving it here and there.

• General

• However: there are 18 "howevers" in the text. It is a word that slips all too easily from one's pen but seldom enhances the prose. In most cases (all cases in this article, in my view, except possibly "However, Saxony had now joined the war against Prussia") the prose would be stronger and would flow better without it.

Chariotsacha has tackled the "howevers". Wtfiv (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted to address the concerns below. Wtfiv (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Individual drafting points

• He had been educated by a Frenchwoman, Madame de Montbail … and he wished that she educate his children – and did she? It isn't clear.

Y Done. She did, as per the reference. final clause reworded to "had her educate his children as well." Previous sentence had "wish", so removal of redundancy is helpful, I think Wtfiv (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Frederick William I, popularly dubbed the Soldier King, had created a large and powerful army led by his famous "Potsdam Giants", carefully managed his treasury, and developed a strong centralised government; he was prey to a violent temper and ruled Brandenburg-Prussia with absolute authority. – the two sections of this sentence don't seem to belong together. Perhaps a full stop rather than a semicolon?

Y Done. Full stop, added an "also" in "He was also prey..."

• Soon after his previous affair, he became close friends – the usual form is to use a name rather than a pronoun at first mention in a new paragraph

Y Done. Name put in main clause, reworded to "Soon after his affair with Keith, Frederick became..."

• weakened by gout brought about by the campaign – gout is certainly weakening but it isn't clear how it would be brought on by a military campaign

Y Done. deleted "brought about by the campaign"

• Later, he regarded this time as one of the happiest of his life. – this reads as though it was Heinrich August de la Motte Fouqué who regarded this as a happy time, but I suspect you mean Frederick.

Y Done. changed to "Later, Frederick regarded..."

• an idealistic refutation of Machiavelli – I'd be careful with "refutation": "refute" means to disprove rather than merely rebut.

Y Done. changed "refutation" to "rebuttal".

• Prussia had one soldier for every 28 citizens, whereas Great Britain only had one for every 310, and the military absorbed 86% of the state budget. – a bit ambiguous: the state was presumably Prussia rather than Britain, but it doesn't read that way

Y Done. modified to "Prussia's state budget".

• Disappointed with the performance of his cavalry … Frederick spent much of his time in Silesia establishing a new doctrine for them. – doctrine? Unexpected word and its import isn't obvious.

Y Hopefully addresses concern. I think the original editor meant military doctrine, as Prussian strategic, operational and tactical use of cavalry was inadequate. I linked "doctrine" to "military doctrine" for clarification. If anyone else wants to reword, please do! Wtfiv (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• This victory, along with the Franco-Bavarian forces capturing Prague, forced the Austrians to seek peace with Frederick. – and with his allies? Just "Forced the Austrians to seek peace" would suffice in that case, perhaps.

Y Done.

• a counterattack by the Austrians at the Battle of Soor Frederick then turned – full stop missing, I think.

Y Done.

• In 1756, Frederick attempted to forestall England's financing – Britain's, not England's, by this stage in the 18th century, here and later in the para.

Y Done.

• albeit with Russian favoured conditions – I suggest hyphenating "Russian-favoured"

Y Done. Rewrote clause to "albeit with conditions that favoured the Russians."

• In addition, the war also cost Frederick personally. Many of Frederick's closest friends and family members— including his brother Augustus William, his sister Wilhelmine, and his mother— had died during the war. Did they die as a consequence of the war? If not, the first sentence seems unjustified.

Y Hopefully, this rewrite addresses the concern: "During this time, Frederick also suffered a number of personal losses. Many of his closest..." and ending with "had died while Frederick was engaged in the war".

• ten per cent of Poland's population were dissenters, as the 600,000 Eastern Orthodox and 250,000 Protestants were called, however during the 1760s their political importance was out of proportion – if you must have another "however" here, you need to precede it with a stronger punctuation mark than a comma. You might also mention what these people were dissenting from – i.e. that Poland was largely Roman Catholic.

Y Reworked prose as follows: "Poland was predominantly Catholic, but approximately ten per cent of Poland's population, 600,000 Eastern Orthodox and 250,000 Protestants were non-Catholic dissenters. During the 1760s, the dissenters' political importance was out of proportion to their numbers. Although dissenters still had substantial rights."

More to come. Tim riley talk 07:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch of comments on the prose. (Let me add here that reading through it I have found the article interesting and informative, and a pleasure to review.)

• he was not fan of protracted warfare – missing an indefinite article, and isn't "fan" a bit slangy for an encyclopædia article?

Y Changed to "he did not advocate for protracted warfare."

• Austrian co-ruler Emperor Joseph II … Historian Robert Citino … Historian Dennis Showalter … and later Historian Leopold von Ranke and Nationalist historian Heinrich von Treitschke – to my way of thinking, false titles like these are inappropriate in formal writing. Fine for tabloid newspapers and suchlike, but a bit downmarket for a Wikipedia article on a historical subject. But that's just my view, and I leave it to you to agree or disagree.

Y I agree. Most of the active editors have tried to balance keeping the voice of previous editors as much as possible, but I dislike this style as well. Deleted "historian". Reverted spelling in quote back to AmE, as Citino is an American author.

• these offensive operations weren't acts of blind aggression – MOS:N'T

Y

• In both one of his earliest published works – needs tweaking

Y Modified to "In his earliest published work... and his later..."

• Frederick's debasement of the coinage to fund the Seven Years' War left Prussian monetary system in shambles – perhaps "shambles" is rather too informal a word?

Y "shambles" to "disarray"

• Around 1751 he founded – another pronoun where our normal usage would be the name.

Y "Around 1751 Frederick founded"

• Frederick the Great followed his recommendations – I'd just call him Frederick here.

Y done.

• He persecuted the Polish Roman Catholic Church … by confiscating their goods and property – is a plural pronoun appropriate here?

Y Subject is "church", so replaced with "its".

• a massive drainage program – if you are going to standardise on BrE, "programme" (except for computers) is the orthodox spelling.

Y BrE is certainly something I'll miss 50% of the time, so that would be something I'd miss. Thanks for the catch. Fixed.

• who he appointed as Royal Chamberlain – I hate to be pedantic (no I don't) but who really ought to be whom here.

Y Good catch: a "whom" should be a "whom", though as you know, spoken AmE can lapse into the informality of subsuming the one into the other. Done.

• his father, who had a deep aversion for France … He was educated by French tutors – if Frederick William hated the French so much, the reader may wonder why he engaged French tutors for his son and heir. Is there an explanation?
• Frederick had many famous buildings constructed in his capital Berlin – could do with a comma before Berlin, I think.

Y

• A number of the buildings – there are some (not me) who get aerated about "a number of" and insist on "some" or similar. I merely mention it.

Y Left "number" as is. Connotatively, I feel "number" conveys more indexical specificity than "some", since it refers to particular locations in Berlin. If, as you mentioned, you are okay with it, I'll leave it.

• The picture gallery at Sanssouci "represents a unique synthesis of the arts in which architecture, painting, sculpture and the decorative arts enter into dialogue with each other, forming a compendium of the arts" – I think so extensive a quotation probably ought to be attributed in the text.

Y Quote deleted and transformed into paraphrase: " His sense of aesthetics can be seen in the picture gallery at Sanssouci, which presents architecture, painting, sculpture and the decorative arts as a unified whole." Deleted first instance of citation, as second at the end of the paragraph accounts for the entire paragraph.

• When Frederick ascended the throne in 1740, he reorganised the Prussian Academy of Sciences (Berlin Academy), which his father had closed down as an economy measure – if it had been closed down how did he reorganise it? Perhaps something like "revived and reorganised"?

Y Replaced "reorganised" with "reinstituted".

• Kant published religious writings in Berlin which would have been censored elsewhere in Europe – This is properly cited, but I'd be a bit uneasy about making so unequivocal and confident a statement on a single authority: I think it would be as well to say in the text "according to the historian Hans Aarsleff".

Y This one is particularly problematic. The original editor may have been referring to Kant's What is Enlightenment?, which was published in Berlin about two years before Frederick's death and challenged religious paternalism. But I can't verify this, the Aarsleff is one of the few articles I was unable to personally access. Sentence was deleted since its scope could not be verified. Aarsleff was kept as a citation, as I believe this addresses the academy as a whole, and someone with journal access could verify. Added subscription to url access for Aarsleff in reference template.

• Frederick William II instead ordered the body to be entombed next to his father – whose father? Clearer to say "that of Frederick William I".

Y "instead ordered Frederick's body to be entombed next to his father, Frederick William I"

• Thomas Carlyle's History of Frederick the Great (8 vol. 1858–1865) emphasised the power of one great "hero" – on a purely personal note, and nothing to do with this review, may I say what a pleasure it is to see Carlyle's work mentioned? It may not be the greatest history, but the prose is an endless joy. I could quote many wonderful extracts, but will refrain.

 Comment: I really enjoy Carlyle's writing as well. His prose doesn't lend to easy citation, one editor Bryan Rutherford boldly cited him in all four of the Silesian Featured Articles he keeps and eye on. Although some academic historians label Carlyle an "amateur", he's nevertheless a goldmine of facts, perspective, and story-telling, I've also come to the conclusion from doing the citation verifications in this article that his volumes and Kugler are major popular sources that have been endlessly recycled by later biographers.. As Philip Guedalla says "History repeats itself. Historians repeat each other."

• Hitler often compared himself to Frederick the Great., – excess of punctuation

Y

• he kept an oil painting of Anton Graff's portrait of Frederick with him – does that mean a copy? Otherwise a painting of a painting seems rather odd.

Y Reworded to "copy of Anton Graff's portrait"

Tim riley talk 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I believe that the concerns you raised have been addressed. Please let us know if what was done was sufficient or if you have any others. It's great that you found the article interesting and informative. And I feel that the editors that tend to watch and tend this article have done a good job of giving a fairly expansive view of Frederick the Great. Also, I want to thank you for your review so far, which has been helpful, specific, and constructive. Wtfiv (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Good. I think we're nearly there. I'll have one last read-through and unless I find anything else to quibble about we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Tim riley talk 07:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The references are a bit of a mish-mash. If you have ambitions to go to FAC in due course – and I hope you will – you will have to address this, but at GA level there is no specific requirement for complete consistency, and the existing references and bibliography seem to me between them to satisfy criterion 2a. Nonetheless, why lump the bibliographical details of a few books in with the "citations" when the others – the vast majority – are in the "bibliography" section below? I refer to Alford, Barruel, Bentley, Berridge, Billows, Brunhouse, Citino, Craig, Crankshaw, Davies, Dilthey, Ergang, Gundolf, Hertz, Hoffmann, Holborn, Liberles, Locke, Lowenstein, Lukowski, Melton, Ozment, Redman, Schui, Schweitzer, Showalter, Snyder, Stern, Stollberg-Rillinger, Strachan, Szabo, Teter and Wate, not to mention King Frederick himself.

There are five modern books tucked away in the "citations" section that are not given the ISBNs to which I imagine they are entitled: Gaines, Kaufmann, Krimmer, Ladd and Lifschitz. Again, this is not a requirement for GA, but it would be good to be as complete as possible. WorldCat will oblige (and also, were you so inclined, with OCLC numbers for the books that are too old to have ISBNs).

Ref 251 is sending out SOS messages and needs attention. Tim riley talk 08:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm delighted that you think this has FA potential. From my end, I just wanted to clean up the reference and see if the palimpsest of all the editors could be smoothed into a single text. The first two check marks address the concerns you mentioned above. The last question is just seeking more information if the editors are interested in considering FA status for the article.

Y Ref 251 had been disrupted by me in the previous GA edit. It was fixed by the ubiquitous Trappist the monk before I got to it.

Y Added requested ISBNs to Gains, Kaufmann, Krimmer, Ladd, and Lifshitz. It's probably required for FA status, I'm not a fan of ISBN/OCLC for reference as I've almost never used them, but maybe one of the other editors will do so. Particularly if there is interest in getting the article to FA.

 Question: The hybrid nature of the references emerged from what I found when I started cleaning the references. There were two kinds of references:

a) Much of the article repeatedly relies on a handful of oft-used references cited multiple times with different page numbers.

b) It also had a huge number of references with one-off (or two-off) citations to establish a single point in the article.

To keep down the citation clutter and allow triangulation of the oft-used references. I chose SFN/SFNM for the oft-used ones, which allowed multiple sources to be cited in one number, and standard citation for the one-offs. Otherwise, the citations would start looking cluttered.

If any of the editors do have the desire to make this FA in the future, do you have a suggestion for formatting these to catch this huge diversity of oft-used and one-off citations that would be keep the citation clutter down? Wtfiv (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll drop you a line on your talk page giving you my views, for what they're worth, on the general question of formatting citations. Meanwhile I think the referencing here, though not what one would call streamlined, does what the GA criteria require it to.

To conclude my review: the article is well and widely sourced. Some old sources are used – such as Kugler 1845 and Ritter 1936, but there's nothing wrong with old sources when used appropriately, and here they are excellently balanced by the 21st-century sources on which most of the text is based, such as Anderson 2001, Blackbourn 2006, Clark 2006, Fraser 2001, MacDonogh 2000, Schieder 2000 and Scott 2001. The structure of the article is logical, no bias or distortion is evident, the prose is very readable and the illustrations are excellent. This article meets all the GA criteria, in my opinion, and I have much pleasure in promoting it to GA. Tim riley talk 17:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you very much! I'm glad the older sources are respected. As mentioned, they are often the source of other bibliographers anyway (e.g., Carlyle). Thank you for taking the time, and I'm delighted that in Wikipedia "Frederick the Great" has at least made it to "Frederick the Good". Wtfiv (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you old boy! Your wonderful guidance during this review is invaluable, all the best! Chariotsacha (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Fredericks's letter "I am not that way inclined"

The section "Sexual orientation" contains the statement "Frederick wrote: "Fortune has it in for me; she is a woman, and I am not that way inclined."[161]" The source given is the biography by Blanning. However, the letter quoted by Blanning reads the following in the (French) original: "La fortune m'a tourné le dos. Je devais m'y attendre; elle est femme, et je ne suis pas galant. Translating "je ne suis pas galant" as "I am not that way inclined" seems like a very imprecise translation; better would probably be something like "I am not chivalrous" or something similar. I think the section on sexual orientation provides some serious evidence, but the translation of the letter seems severely forced to fit into a (otherwise perhaps well attested) hypothesis. I am not an experienced editor, so I'm not sure how to move on from here. I can't find any authoritative English translation of the letter, and Blanning is in principle to be considered a reliable source I assume, him being a studied and published historian. However, the letter as cited by him is obviously a sloppy translation. I would suggest to simply remove the sentence with the letter, since the case seems dubious to me, but I would be very grateful for input from more experienced editors before proceeding. Please note that I am not bent on throwing out the section with the letter, but I think the article would be more accurate without it. --EpicBroccoli (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I see exactly what you mean, and that while there is overwhelming evidence for his homosexuality, this would damage the article, I also think the statement is slightly out of place, maybe it should've been moved to the middle of the subsequent body paragraph. I'll look into it and the validity of the excerpt, thanks for bringing this up. -- Chariotsacha (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Looked into it, sentence was very dubious and the translation is completely false. Thanks!: Reason: incorrect translation --Chariotsacha (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

While I agree it is worth removing from the page (at least for now), it probably bears further research. According to French Wiktionary, galant can have connotations with specific regard to relationships with women and (e.g. "one who seeks to please women") and "par extension" that which deals with matters of love (with "galant" poetry given as an example of this usage of the word). Not to mention the possibility that the word may have had other connotations at the time that were even more on-the-nose re: his sexuality. Lexid523 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Moved this discussion to Talk:Sexuality_of_Frederick_the_Great Lexid523 (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

First Partition (again)

MyMoloboaccount, Buidhe, Chariotsacha and others who would weigh in. The material from the Prussian Partition article is being moved back to the Frederick article. As we prepared the Frederick for Good Article status, it appeared the consensus was to move it to an independent article that expands the detail but keeps the main article at reasonable length. Some editors wanted to remove most of the material. For the sake of length and focus, I thought moving the material out of the article was a reasonable solution, but I felt the material and its references (which I had attempted to clean up) should be kept for interested readers. The solution at that time was to have me move the material to the Prussian Partition. Since those edits and expansion of the Prussian partition, I have come to appreciate that the section is of a reasonable size and doesn't dominate the article.

Now, it seems that now some editors may think the original material should be moved back to this article instead. I deleted the pasted material for now pending a sense of consensus. For myself, I'm open to shifting material between the articles if it needs to be balanced out, but I do think it would be good to agree on what should be in the main article and what should be in Prussian Partition. Wtfiv (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on where the material should go (if anywhere), but it does not belong in this article, being excessive detail. Article on Frederick is long enough as it is. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If the information concerns Fredericks role only then can it can be incorporated, however the article is already quite long. I'd say if you were to incorporate sections of it into the Frederick the Great article you only have room for two more paragraphs maximum, it would be too bloated otherwise, for example I believe this section, or an interpretation of it (from Prussian partition) should be added into the Frederick the Great article:

Frederick undertook the exploitation of Polish territory under the pretext of an enlightened civilizing mission that emphasized the supposed cultural superiority of Prussian ways.[23] He saw the outlying regions of Prussia as barbaric and uncivilized,[24] He expressed anti-Polish sentiments when describing the inhabitants, such as calling them "slovenly Polish trash".[25] He also compared the Polish peasants unfavorably with the Iroquois,[11] and named three of his new Prussian settlements after colonial areas of North America: Florida, Philadelphia and Saratoga.[16] The Poles remaining in the territories were to be Germanized.

This paragraph provides context on Frederick alone (check) is important to the partition (check) and provides suffcient context. Only stuff like this should be added. Thanks for asking for my consult! Chariotsacha (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I am quite happy to compromise on the wording regarding oppressive measures undertaken by Frederick towards conquered Polish population as long as the article isn't sanitized by removing their mention all together. The statement about North America isn't that significant I think to warrant its inclusion:

Frederick undertook the exploitation of Polish territory under the pretext of an enlightened civilizing mission that emphasized the supposed cultural superiority of Prussian ways.[23] He saw the outlying regions of Prussia as barbaric and uncivilized,[24] He expressed anti-Polish sentiments when describing the inhabitants, such as calling them "slovenly Polish trash".[25] He also compared the Polish peasants unfavourably with the Iroquois,[11] and intended to get rid of the Poles through Germanization, engaging in forceful take over of Polish property, religious discrimination, oppressive tax system and military draft, settlement of German settlers and redistribution of Polish Crown's property to German landowners.[26],[27],[28].

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, dare I say I support MyMoloboaccount's version of the paragraph and think it should be included. Chariotsacha (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Added edited draft of paragraph to article (along with accessible references). Wtfiv (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this sentence: His long-term goal was to get rid of the Poles through Germanization, implementation of an oppressive tax system and a military draft, religious discrimination, and the forceful redistribution of Polish property to German settlers. Can this be sourced to a more recent book than one from 1919? The wording is also questionable: "oppressive" according to who? I don't even see that in the source on the page given (p. 46), nor do I find anything about religious discrimination or forced redistribution of property. What I do find is 1) Germanization 2) the claim that the Jews were agents of Germanization, 3) complaints about Prussia law as being inferior to Polish law, but not the statement that it was somehow made specifically worse for Poles 4) censorship. I have my doubts about using Ritter 1936 as well, although it seems more biased toward Frederick.--Ermenrich (talk) 2

Ermenrich I think you raise good points. My own wish would be to achieve a wording that fairly reflects MyMoloboaccount's concerns (also see archive of MyMoloboaccount's position in 2011), doesn't unduly bloat the section or send it off track. (The details are in The Prussian Partition). If you wish, please edit as you see fit. I'm sure some back and forth will occur, but maybe it can stabilize to achieve a balance. My concern in this regard is to keep it brief, express the point, but and save it from adding disproportionate length to the article, as it seemed to do originally (and is reflected in Buidhe's statement, as I understand it.)

My larger concern is more with the references. If a modern source is more appropriate, please add it. There's no doubt the 1919 source was written in wake of the rebirth of the Polish nation, so it certainly has that flavor and perspective. (For me, it also seemed to capture a bit of MyMoloboaccount's perspective too.) Though the citation may not cleanly match in this case, almost all the details of the summarized points can be found in the Prussian Partition article and are backed by more detailed references. For the final sentence, I picked the most summative of the sources so we could avoid citation bloat,If one of us were willing to do take the time, we could add an individual citation for each item in the final sentence, or better yet find a better summative citation. Just an aside, regarding the age of the references: My own explorations with this article led me to believe many of the later biographies lift from early ones, so that is less of a concern for me. (In the GA evaluation, I quoted As Philip Guedalla:"History repeats itself. Historians repeat each other.") However, if the apparent facts have been superseded by new information being brought to light, that's a different issue altogether. Wtfiv (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I've done an edit that tries to address some of your concerns.

• Updated points in sentence to better match points made.
• Hagen's (1976) more recent, more comprehensive, and more focused article supports remaining points (which do not contradict Konopczyński, 1919). Kept Konopczyński (1919) for one point, but this is reinforced by Brzezina (1989) in Prussian Partition article.
• Removed the word oppressive, as context is more clear about who is oppressed. Interestingly, the different sources in Prussian Partition mention both taxation and the introduction of laws allowing Polish noble lands to be alienated as effecting the gradual transfer of additional property to settlers. I kept it brief here, that is also detailed in the Prussian Partition.

Of course, feel free to edit as well. Wtfiv (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Puffery?

''Regardless, historians in the 21st century now view Frederick as one of the finest generals and most enlightened monarchs of his age This seems like a awful puffery to me. I am certain some Prussophile writers do, however I am pretty certain that many historians don't ignore Frederick's incredible xenophobia, religious persecution and oppression of Polish population. I ma not aware of any Polish historian praising Frederick in such way by the way--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

While "finest generals" is probably accurate here, I agree that "most enlightened" is subjective at best, and appears unsupported by refs in the body. If no one finds refs to point to for this, I'll rewrite this to fit what the body of the article has, unless someone beats me to it. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with totally eradicating this line, he was by far an above average general and his patronage of the arts and enlightenment would perhaps be only second to Catherine the Great of Russia, and undoubtedly far beyond most of Europe at the time. However "most enlightened" is far too subjective, simply stating "as one of the finest generals and among the enlightened monarchs of his age" might be a good alternative. Chariotsacha (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion went quiet, and there haven't been any changes, so I implemented a number of changes to lead and added a new reference to the final paragraph based on recent discussions.

• In first paragraph lead, changed sentence "Frederik was the last Hohenzollern..."
  • Replaced annexing strategic parts with the more specific and linked annexing Polish Prussia. The more formal name is Royal Prussia, but I followed Scott (2001) p. 176. This makes sense of later mentions of Polish Prussia in main text, which reminds readers that this was originally Polish territory. Knowing the territory is also known as Prussia makes more sense of the statement about King of Prussia vs King in Prussia.
  • Added the First Partition of Poland with link.
  • The word annexing in the edited sentence in the first paragraph is now linked to address the concern that the "take over" of Polish Prussia is not "sanitized" as mentioned in talk above. The Wikipedia article on annexation clearly describes a forcible take over and is generally considered an illegal act.
  • Linked Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
• Deleted sentence in second paragraph starting with Towards end of his reign, he took over... As it is now redundant with edited sentence in first paragraph lead, which mentions the annexation.
  • Statement of religious oppression towards Catholics in Polish Prussia is already mentioned in subsequent paragraph.
  • Details of this annexation's impact on the Polish population is detailed below in First Polish Partition section and referenced in even more detail in the referenced "main article" Prussian Partition at the head of that section.
  • Deletion also creates more narrative continuity. allowing statement about Frederick as military theorist to follow directly on clause in previous sentence regarding "military fame", which is well-documented in the article.
• Added new sentence in second paragraph about how Frederick extended the Kingdom of Prussia. This seemed to be the original intention of the deleted sentence before it was recently edited to focus on impact of the First Partition of Poland.
  • This sentence also mentions Silesia and East Frisia, in addition to Polish Prussia, to make point about expansion. Used word acquisition, as it covers all three cases. Although Silesia and Polish Prussia were annexed (and Silesia eventually ceded), East Frisia was acquired through occupation based on a legitimate hereditary claim. - Removed this sentence as point was made more succinctly in first paragraph of the lead. Wtfiv (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Attempted to address "Puffery" issue in final lead paragraph.
  • In last paragraph of article in "Historiography and Legacy" section replaced Showalter (2012) reference with Donaghue (2016). Showalter reference was incorrect. It went to a description of the Prussian infantry. The Donaghue is a short book review of Blanning, but the middle of the article supports the sentence. Specifically, Donaghue points toward Mitford's and Asprey's biographies, as well as Blanning's, as additional evidence of biographer's positive assessment toward Frederick's cultural and administrative contributions.
  • In last sentence of lead, removed somewhat subjective one of the finest military generals (See Showalter's analysis and Blanning's quote in the Donaghue review which questions aspects of his generalship) and replaced with more neutral outstanding military leader. In addition, the point about him being an influential military theorist has already been made in the preceding paragraph.
  • Changed most enlightened monarchs to a capable monarch, whose commitment to enlightenment culture and administrative reform that acknowledges his commitment to enlightenment values without making comparisons. Though it is still open to argument, his written commitment to enlightenment values is documented, but comparisons to other monarchs always risk being subjective.
  • Changed now to tend to. Admittedly, this adds a hedge. Almost every biography mentioned in references that was published after 2000 agrees with this consensus to varying degrees. However, as mentioned above, some historians, such as those looking at a history from the Polish perspective, may feel otherwise. Thus, the hedge reflects the current consensus, particularly in English works, but ensures that the sentence doesn't imply universal assent.

Hopefully, these changes address the various concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)