Talk:Frederick the Great/Archive 2

Old discussions
I removed a vandalising paragraph. looks as if some sicko has it in for this page. Reverted becouse of vandalism --Heno 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved this page back in keeping with the naming conventions reached a long time ago. Rulers are known by their name, reginal number, and dominion, with epithets going in the beginning of the article. Danny

The image of Frederick II of Prussia bears more than an uncanny resemblence to the image in the article on Frederick William II of Prussia...

I change the English translation of the quote "Hier muss ein jeder nach seiner Facon selig werden." from "Here every one must find his happiness in his own way." to "Here every one must find his belief in his own way.", because this quote was said in a religious context and "selig" is usually referring to "belief" instead of "happiness". thefox


 * Selig means blessedness or happiness. It could never mean belief, which is glaube.Lestrade 13:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


 * In my humble opinion, neither happiness nor belief adequately capture the sense of "selig" in this quote, while "blessedness" might be the literal translation but is probably not used that way in English. "Selig" here means happiness with a transcendental connotation. Alternative translations of the quote I found are "every one is free to pursuit his own happiness", "every man must go to heaven in his own way". 87.159.168.62 (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion over the use of "Friedrick" or "Frederich". Is there a Wikipedia policy? In any case, a consistent usage should be applied. I think I saw (and corrected) four different usages and some obvious mispellings like "Friedrick" and "Freidrick". Hopefully I haven't made things work. For now, I've resolved the inconsistencies to "Frederick" which should make a global replace easier to perform.

And what about this "Frederick" variant that is the current title? This is a serious inconsistency that should be corrected. WpZurp 06:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whuh? The name is spelled Frederick. That's the English equivalent of the German "Friedrich". "Friedrick" is not a name normally used in any language, as far as I am aware. In English, Frederick is normally known by the anglicized form of his name. john k 00:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Too much about his homosexuality?
I'm torn on this. There seems to be an agenda with the amount and the manner of the references to his preferences. On the other hand, it helps to create an understanding that the normal dry material lacks. I think some tweaking should be done to make sure that all the references are appropriate to understanding his nature in the context that they are presented.Bwood 14:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a specific source which indicates Frederick as being a confirmed homosexual, but there are plenty of sources which infer it. However, there should be more information about his deeds than his orientation, IMO. Eventually I plan to see which quotes could be removed or trimmed down, but I'm not sure when I'll get around to it. Feel free to work on the text (as well as the FA review above). Olessi 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems someone really tried to make him look gay in the text. In reality it is commonly believed he was not interested in sexuality at all. 217.83.108.126 20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is used to promote the usual homosexual agenda and purpose. This being to make homosexuality seem to be legitimate and widespread, thereby giving it an appearance of normalcy.Lestrade 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I hope that normality is not represented by a hateful and psychologically histerical man like Lestrade. You should follow a treatment : you must have some psychological disease like paranoia. Anyway, normal, healthy and peaceful people are those who have normal relation with other people know that homosexual people are as """normal""" as heterosexual people. Homophoby is hate, it is one of the real abnormality in the world and, therefore, homophobic and intolerant people.

Our sympathies. Felix Kersten, Heinrich Himmler's masseur, amusingly records in his memoirs that when he told him that his hero Frederick was homosexual, he likewise became upset. Engleham 12:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your sympathy is not warranted. There is absolutely no evidence to sustain the inference about homosexuality. No one wrote first-hand observations. Frederick did not record any statements regarding such behavior. This article's constant references to his male companions and acquaintances is simply an example of the intention of homosexuals to make it seem as though famous people share their unnatural and harmful behavior.Lestrade 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

re: lestrade--It's fun to be piggish and bigoted, neh? I do agree, however, that the article is coming at the point too obliquely--it might note that certain (cited) sources have inferred or implied his homosexuality but then tell the story of his childhood etc. in less colored language. I've never read anything explicitly suggesting he was anything but uninterested in sexuality, but if those texts exist, I'd like to see them cited and have done with it.--74.100.116.23 19:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also piggish and bigoted, but it is because I have a low tolerance for serial murderers, kidnappers, drunks, and child molesters. Is it bad to be piggish and bigoted? Should I have counseling?69.19.14.29 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)OttoVonBirthmarck

By the way, the homosexuality of Frederick II was acknowledged by the PRINCE DE LIGNE, who had a discussion with him. This is a first hand observation, among others. It is interesting that Lestrade is not interested in truth but only in promoting the homophobic agenda, much more powerful and truth-hidding than a so-called and non-existing homosexual agenda.

Personal feelings about homosexuality aside, is there __hard__ evidence? The theory that he was estranged from his wife on the grounds of Austrian influence and his distaste of his father is far more compelling. Celebrating the great male friendships of Greece is not hard evidence since they weren't culturally associated with homo eroticism until our era. I can imagine having hallucinations and dramatic outbursts if my best friend was executed before my eyes. Or must we also associate drama queen behavior with homosexuality? Not everything is about sex... Nickjost (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember that homosexuals are not only sexual beings.

The evidence will always, to a degree, be reliant on contemporary sources and accounts, and modern interpretation. Perhaps estrangement from his wife on the grounds of austrian influence is a compelling explanation for his behaviour - but likewise more evidence to draw this out would be helpful in supporting the case. There is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that Frederick was broadly attracted to his own sex (not least the correspondence and documentation by Voltaire); less so that he actually engaged in homosexual sexual activity. But I would dispute the fact that inclusion within the article of this material shows an over-interest in sex; I think instead it is looking at the issue of sexuality (a different issue) and is useful to shed light on Frederick the person - his characteristics, preferences and influences - in order to complement understanding of his political and military achievements. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion if Friedrich der Große was homosexual or not is only backed by rumours, quoting historian with doubtful repute. The goal is very clear: to rubbish another historical person. "There are rumours that Obama is a dog lover." See any difference? There's none. Until proven, such "anecdotes" should be stowed away. --141.91.129.2 (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find these comments deeply offensive. To suggest that Frederick was homosexual is not to "rubbish" him. One does not need to be regarded as "rubbish" as a result of their sexuality. Indeed I would argue it makes him a figure of great historical interest. Furthermore the sources are reputable. If you have constructive comments to make on improving the article then please do so. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe many of the references to Frederick's intimate relationships discussed here (and since deleted) were put in the article by me. None of them presented Frederick as factually homosexual (that would be impossible to prove), but they did discuss people, pretty much all men, who had a deep and influential impact on Frederick's life. I used first-hand quotes, including from Voltaire, who lived with him for an extended period, and first-hand observations, such as by Frederick's sister. They were all sourced to a book published by Harvard College and written by an Emeritus Professor.

As to the "amount" of quotes, since he lived in a position and a time that made homosexuality criminal at best and deadly at worst, trying to sort out the conflicting information that's come down to us requires more information than just a tidy one line quote which might sum up an opposite-gender relationship to the satisfaction of most people. If I lived in a place where revelation of my relationship with a man would result in being ostracized and possibly imprisoned, I'd very likely claim to be asexual as well. If my father were an abusive bigot who beat me and killed my boyfriend, I might even genuinely become asexual out of psychological shock, but that wouldn't change my romantic interests. I'm not saying this is what happened with Frederick, as we can never know. I'm just saying that writing him off as naturally asexual is a tidy way to whitewash same-gender attraction out of history.

As to the "manner" of the quotes, I simply tried to integrate them into the article, in the same way that quotes about opposite-gender relationships and non-romantic relationships are often integrated into articles. I treated them as gender-neutral, including them in the same way I would have if Frederick had been female for instance.

It is frustrating that relationships between historical people of the same gender have to be cordoned off into a box of the subject's article with the first sentence usually saying something like "Some historians think so-and-so might have been bisexual or homosexual, but others believe he may have had a complete lack of interest in romantic relationships". Let's contrast that with the treatment given to opposite-gender relationships. President Eisenhower had a wife, but in the article covering him mention of her isn't limited to a special section labeled "Possible Heterosexuality" with an introductory sentence reading "Some historians think Eisenhower might have been bisexual or heterosexual, but others believe he may have had a complete lack of interest in romantic relationships". We have no proof that Eisenhower ever engaged in sex with his wife or had an interest in sex at all. No DNA tests were done to prove that her children were produced through sex with him. There are no first-hand accounts of him having sex with her or of him discussing sex with her. There is no _hard evidence_. Yet she is prominently displayed in the article as an assumedly romantic partner, and the belief that her children resulted in sex with him is taken for granted.

If there is a "homosexual agenda" to make homosexuality appear "legitimate and widespread", then it is far overshadowed in society by the agenda to make heterosexuality the primary assumption in all cases, to make it mandatory for all heroic figures, and to make anyone who can be "proven" to be homosexual appear creepy, silly, and/or irrelevant. To some extent, even liberal & progressive thinkers tend to buy into this by accepting assumptions of heterosexuality at face value and holding assumptions of homosexuality to a much higher standard of "evidence" and "proof", especially for figures treated as heroes. Markwiki (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

LGBT categories
Before this turns into a fullscale edit war could we please take this to the discussion page? It seems to me we have a similar situation as with the Francis Bacon article. The evidence for Frederick being a homosexual are circumstantial at best, and it does not seem to be the academic consensus either. To use the LGBT category would in my opinion mean that the article takes a stance in this debate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right - and commend your attempt to address this issue in a measured way. I can't say that I'm strongly attached to retaining the LGBT category - the main benefit I think it brings is in alerting readers who are interested in the category that there are other articles that they might want to look at. In that sense it serves simply as a "categorisation" tool to facilitate navigation across wikipedia. I worry that some contributors think that the label is actually a "classification" tool - and that it describes things in absolute terms.

I fully appreciate that issues of sexuality are complex and often open to interpretation - because they relate to the "personal feelings" of an individual then they can be hard to pin down. In Frederick's case (as with Bacon) we can never be 100% sure, but then do we need to be? If we describe Frederick as a German Lutheran then does this mean that we have to be content that he agreed absolutely with every doctrine of the Lutheran church or behaved in every way as an exemplary Lutheran Christian? A simple reading of Fredericks' life shows that he was predeominantly oriented towards the same sex; and this was noted by contemporaries.

I don't mind having a discussion about how we add/ remove labels. But I object to being personally abused where I have been called a "niche gay history lobbyist". I don't get paid, and I don't have to lobby anyone to get my view across thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For that purpose would it not be more correct to have a or something similar? It would be more ideal for the contents of the article, while at the same time make for a more precise label for navigation. Concerning the religion category, well I can only say that I generally oppose those categories for much the same reasons (the Niels Bohr article shows the problems that these can pose), though that is a seperate discussion. Regarding the comments made by the (sock using?) editor, they were childlike and completely inappropriate. Clearly he did not have good reasons or he would have bothered to go to this discussion page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconding Saddhiyama's idea. Contaldo, I have mad respect for you per the Francis Bacon decision like 6 months ago, but I think in this case, Christina of Sweden, and a few others that declaring LGBT-ness with a category (not your fault for having to use a category that is declarative, and doesn't allow for ambiguity, btw) is a bit hasty. I think Saddhiyama's "proposed" category could fit the bill. Again, as in the Bacon case, I really couldn't care less if the individuals were/weren't LGBT -- good for them, and as you've noted, the label is anachronistic; I just don't like passing conclusive judgement on an issue that's very much up for debate, in an encyclopedia article. Cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you do make a fair point. I must confess I'm not overly happy with the category that we have as it is rather simplistic - LGBT is a modern term, and would have confused contemporaries of Frederick. Something like 'LGBT history in Germany' would be much more sensible, and that way it would be visible to someone who wants to find out more on the debate, without pinning things down absolutely. Maybe I need to see if I can start that up. To be honest if someone want's to go ahead and remove the category tag then I can go with that. I guess I was making a stand because I didn't like the abusive comments of one particular user. Best wishes. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether you, me, Saddhiyama or Siddhartha thinks Frederick is gay, the question is whether a RS makes the claim. This should be sufficient to put it in the categories.  Yes, a more accurate category description might be "Royalty suspected of being LBGT by a reliable source", but...  well, that IS what that/those categories mean.  We don't reserve the category only for those royals who are out and VERIFIED, do we?  Ratagonia (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there are reliable sources on both sides in this case. The "List of LGBT Persons" on Wikipedia actually requires that the LGBT status be conclusively confirmed, if that might help provide a sort of guideline on this issue. I have no issues with including this or any other page on a list of categories about LGBT history, or being part of the LGBT wikiproject in general -- the issue is that by adding the category tag, when the question is in dispute by reliable sources on both sides, steps outside of being an encyclopedia presenting arguments, and into the territory of a conclusive historical viewpoint on the subject matter. Again, if he was gay, glad to add the tag; however, there's no academic consensus, based on what is available here and in my own studies (not that I can use those for support lol). My .02, anyways :-D For the moment, I'm not going to re-remove the category tags, now that you added them back; I'll leave that to someone else, so as to avoid the potential for this becoming an edit conflict -- ultimately I think if we could come to a consensus here it might have some value for a number of pages out there... cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jason said: "The "List of LGBT Persons" on Wikipedia actually requires that the LGBT status be conclusively confirmed, if that might help provide a sort of guideline on this issue." Huh??  not in the least.  Wiki only requires that a Reliable Source makes the claim, or the suggestion.  No more than that.  The Wiki is a collection of PUBLISHED statements, and not a repository of Original Research.  Some sources discuss that he may have been gay, therefore, he qualified for inclusion the the LGBT Royalty Category.  Period.  The Wiki is not a place to sift the material and posit a theory as to whether F was gay, or not.  If that is what you want to do, write a book.  Ratagonia (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to Ratagonia's assertion that the List of LGBT People doesn't have a requirement for conclusive sourcing, I'll quote: "Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed. " -- the sourcing in the case of Frederick is decidedly mixed on the question of his sexuality, resulting in a lack of anything more than "rumor said X" about Frederick -- with  X being gay, straight, bi, or even asexual. Inclusion in the LGBT catagories, as well as statements absolutely identifying his purported favorites as "lovers" or anything of that sort goes beyond the use of sources, and into the realm of drawing conclusions -- which is much more similar to "Original Research" than is opting to NOT include Frederick on those lists due to inconclusive evidence. As for including him in the scope of LGBT projects, I think that is firmly supported -- there has been a lot of controversy about his life and sexuality, dating even back to his own lifetime; however, to decide arbitrarily that one set of sources was better than another in determining whether he was gay destroys the whole concept of including the variety of viewpoints in the first place. In sum: in cases like this, where numerous conflicting reports occur, and no evidence from the hands of the subject in question is available, it's best to avoid defining the individual as either gay OR straight, and just let the evidence be viewed in a neutral fashion. Cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair. I've reconciled myself now to seeing LGBT categories dropped from articles. In a way I think this is a shame. I agree that in most cases the evidence, while frequently strong, is nevertheless inconclusive; but the one benefit such categorisation/ classification brings is to allow those interested in the LGBT issue to quickly find out which articles will be of most interest to them. And then read the debate for an against. But there we go. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair - but I reach an opposite conclusion from your excellent discourse, Jason. You said:  "As for including him in the scope of LGBT projects, I think that is firmly supported -- there has been a lot of controversy about his life and sexuality, dating even back to his own lifetime; however, to decide arbitrarily that one set of sources was better than another in determining whether he was gay destroys the whole concept of including the variety of viewpoints in the first place."  To the first part:  YES, you state that Reliable Sources talk about the controversy.  THAT is what is required.  The Second Part:  no arbitrariness involved in INCLUDING them in the LBGT categories.  I read it as arbitrary to exclude because YOU reach the conclusion that the evidence from the RS's is weak.  Capiche?  Putting him in the category does not MAKE HIM GAY, or enroll him in the GAY AGENDA. The category is not "Royalty absolutely confirmed by YouTube Video to be gay, lesbian, bi or transgender"; it IS "Royalty claimed by a Reliable Source as being GLBT".  The Wikipedia is INCLUSIVE of published, reliable sources; not exclusive because someone thinks the RS's are wrong (or weak), or they think someone is pushing a POV different than their own POV using weak sources.  Have we talked this to death yet???  Ratagonia (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't said anything about a "Gay Agenda" -- I don't have any issue with the inclusion of individuals who are known to have been lgb, or t in those categorizations; I have an issue with doing something that is NPOV. IMO, inclusion/usage of the categories belies the idea of letting the content speak. As you and I both clearly see, the reliability of the sourcing is not really in question. That said, the very fact that numerous opposing sources (which are also reliable) are (appropriately) included precludes coming to a resolution (barring new evidence). Put another way, I don't disagree at all that Wikipedia calls for good sources, or that the sources here are good ones. However, your quote that "Royalty claimed by a Reliable Source as being GLBT" is the definition of the category is not entirely complete: the category's self-description calls for verifiable AND reliable sources which reflect the prevailing/accepted academic view-- in this case, both the verifiability and the scholarly acceptance of the "facts" provided by the various sources is called into question. By this I of course do NOT mean that someone has altered the quotes or slanted the arguments or anything like that; I simply point to the concept that the LACK of a consensus academically, as well as the nature of the primary sources themselves, results in a decidedly muddled situation. In summation, and just to reiterate my stance on this: I don't take issue with the inclusion of ANY sources (that are reliable and verifiable), nor the discussion of ANYONE's sexuality as a result of the information/evidence in said sources; I don't argue that there is some sort of "Gay Lobby" or "Gay Agenda" or "Gay Mafia" or anything like that running around trying to push a POV; I DO think that objectivity requires Wikipedia (and should require ALL encyclopedias) to be overly cautious about appearing to come to a conclusive opinion about a disputed historical concept (in this case, the sexuality of a royal -- for another unrelated example, think something along the lines of why Trotsky was killed, or who killed JFK -- would they fit into a category for "political assassinations" or a category for "assassination by deranged lunatic" or both or neither?). Concordantly, I think the POV is not in the usage of sources, or their inclusion, but I would argue that when someone reads the categories, or were to search for LGBT Royals for research purposes (which is unequivocally a major purpose of the Wiki), seeing Frederick or any other disputed figure on the list would indicate the factuality of the claim, and not accurately portray the situation. But again: not out to prevent inclusion in those categories, just out to ensure the POV provided is neutral, and encourages the READER to come to a conclusion. Cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that classifying Frederick II or Francis Bacon as LGBT is anachronistic, I'd also like to point out that requiring "conclusive evidence" to list people as homosexual/LGBT also implies that homosexuality just didn't exist for large swaths of history to someone viewing the category or list. What kind of "conclusive evidence" could there possibly be for an 18th century European king being attracted to men? A public pronouncement? A sex tape? A letter to a man saying, "I love you, and not in some literary or philosophical way but in a romantic and lustful way"? Anything that might count as "conclusive evidence" would have destroyed the subject's life and possibly got him written out of the historical record anyhow, or would have been destroyed by patriots, relatives, or lovers terrified of their own lives being tainted. It is clear that Frederick's most important & intimate relationships were with men, but our language doesn't have a word for that which doesn't also require an impossible "coming out" or an impossible proof of some sex act. Markwiki (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The appalling situation we end up with is to assume that everyone is/ was heterosexual (as the percentage odds are in their favour) and then find substantive "proof" if you want to suggest otherwise. Not appreciating that for nearly all gay men and women throughout history, such proof would have led to very public scandal and probably death. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction: Reason for "King in Prussia" title
According to the article

"...Prussia consisted of scattered territories... and the former Duchy of Prussia, outside of the Empire bordering the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He was titled King in Prussia because this was only part of historic Prussia; he was to declare himself King of Prussia after acquiring most of the rest in 1772."

However, according to Frederick I of Prussia

Although he was the Margrave and Prince-elector of Brandenburg and the Duke of Prussia, Frederick desired the more prestigious title of king. However, according to Germanic law at that time, no kingdoms could exist within the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the Kingdom of Bohemia.

Leopold I, Archduke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor, was convinced by Frederick to allow Prussia to be ruled as a kingdom... Frederick's argument was that Prussia had never belonged to the Holy Roman Empire and therefore there was no legal or political barrier to prevent the Elector of Brandenburg from being King in Prussia...

Frederick crowned himself "King Frederick I in Prussia" on 18 January 1701 in Königsberg. To indicate that Frederick's royalty was limited to Prussia and did not reduce the rights of the Emperor in Frederick's Imperial territories, he had to call himself "King in Prussia", instead of "King of Prussia"

Also, according to King in Prussia

The Prince-Elector of Brandenburg was a subject of the Holy Roman Emperor. In addition to his electorate which was part of the Holy Roman Empire, he also ruled the Duchy of Prussia which lay outside of the Empire, and where he was full sovereign since the Treaty of Labiau (1656) and the Treaty of Bromberg (1657). In 1701 Elector Frederick III wanted to show his greatness by adopting the title king. At the time there were only three royal titles within the Empire: "King of the Germans" (a title held by the Emperor), "King of Bohemia" (often held by the Emperor as well), and "King of the Romans" (held by the Emperor's heir).

...Emperor Leopold I allowed Frederick to crown himself "King in Prussia", not "King of Prussia"; Frederick was only an elector in his domains within the borders of the Empire, not a king.

...Even so, his move was controversial... The title "King of Prussia" implied lordship over the entire Prussian region, not simply the Duchy of Prussia, and the assumption of such a title by the Hohenzollern margraves would have threatened neighboring Poland; because the province of Royal Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland, the Kings of Poland titled themselves Kings of Prussia until 1742.

Thus, this article and the other articles state different reasons for the use of the odd title "King in Prussia". According to this article, the only reason is the absence of Royal Prussia from the Elector's dominions. According to the other two articles, the primary reason is the objection of the Holy Roman Emperor to another king within the empire (although the "King in Prussia" article mentions the first reason as well).

I considered adding the second reason to this article but decided it would be unwise without having access to the sources. Therefore, I need the help of someone more knowledgeable or having access to sources in order to resolve the conflict.

Top.Squark (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not really certain on this. The King of Sweden held lands within the empire in 1701; so did the King of Spain and the King of Denmark.  So, after 1714, did the King of Great Britain, and after 1723 the King of Sardinia.  So, from 1740 to 1780 did the Queen of Hungary.  After 1772, the King of Prussia did as well.  My understanding was that the Frederick was made king in Prussia because of the "no kings in the Holy Roman Empire" rule, but that he was king in Prussia because of the issue with Royal Prussia and the King of Poland.  Otherwise, what changed in 1772 to bring about the change of title?  But I'm not sure. john k (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From Frederick I to William II, my F&W Encyclopedia calls them King of Prussia. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No particular reason not to, in English, unless one is emphasizing the distinction of the German titles. Prepositions rarely translate exactly. john k (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What changed in 1772? The First Partition of Poland. After that, Prussia was definitely the name of a Great Power; not a region on the Baltic which contained one of the constituents of a small Power. (It also included all of the region of Prussia.) As such, it could defy the Emperor and call itself what it liked (although I suspect Frederick had a legal argument up his sleeve) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh
Frederick quickly began improving the infrastructure of West Prussia, reforming its administrative and legal code, and improving the school system. That's an old claim from Prussian propaganda trying to justify the Partitions. In fact Frederick copied school system that was already developed in Poland as attempts of reforms that Prussia opposed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * G. Ritter's work is quite widely cited as per google scholar. Ritter actually does emphasize Fredrick's attempts to improve infrastructure and develop the economy of the provinces. The author also doesn't deny Frederick's nasty remarks on Poles (that you've picked up); on the other hand, it seems ethnicity wasn't such a huge concern for him, as he even introduced German Poles there. If we're gonna use that book, let's do it in a an honest manner, reflecting both pro's and con's of Frederick's undertakings. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pro's about destruction of Poland-I suggest you refrain from posting such offensive remarks in the future.

Your google scholar results suggest that this is an old work, and looking at its outdated stereotypes(anarchic Poland) and so on, not very objective-although some data can be rescued. Of course the claim that Frederich improved his conquests is false-there was no improvement as local population was discriminated and attempts were made to destroy Polish culture-these propaganda claims by Prussia that were adopted later by German nationalists are sadly sometimes repeated even today, and more widespread in older works as Ritter's book from 70s shows. Sources on this will be provided.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, now you tell me Your google scholar results suggest that this is an old work, and looking at its outdated stereotypes(anarchic Poland) and so on, not very objective-although some data can be rescued.  This is odd, because Ritter's work seemed good enough for you, as you were picking quotes like 'slovenly trash' and stuff on discrimination of Poles. But when I looked closer into the book and discovered some other information, you start complaining that the source isn't good enough (any more). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The remarks that Poles are thrash are well known-if you wish another source can be used. POV and highely outdated claims by Ritter certainly aren't well suited for references-although like I said some parts of his text can be salvaged if they are not very highly suspect private opinions of obviously biased nature. Or do you want to source that German language was "barbaric" before Frederick the Great or that Germanic government system and actions were "primitive exploitation"?. But perhaps you are correct Miacek-s we should replace Ritter where we can, as I noticed this publication was first published in Nazi Germany and later only translated. I will work on correcting that mistake as soon as I can.--MyMoloboaccount 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you could remove any references to Ritter until you've raised the issue at WP:RS noticeboard. it seems like suddenly you just started NOTTOLIKE the historian. Yes, Ritter was a conservative German historian (and member of 1944 anti-Nazi conspirators), but if you'd care to check the resp. Wikipedia article, it reads Ritter's 1936 biography of Frederick the Great has been described by the American military historian Peter Paret as one of the finest military biographies ever written. Ritter's emphasis on Frederick's limited war aims, and his willingness to settle for less than he initially sought was seen at the time as a form of oblique criticism of Adolf Hitler which should clear our doubts. And neither University of California Press (1974) nor Google Books publish Nazi books (or their translations), even you should believe this. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed the part:"Ritter was a staunch German nationalist who belonged to a political movement generally known to historians as National conservatism.[28] Ritter identified with the idea of an authoritarian government in Germany that would make his country Europe's foremost power.[29".

And who says he was Nazi? Several German nationalists weren't. Doesn't mean we should source them on Poland. I will replace him with modern resources. As to anti-Nazi conspirators in 1944- you mean the ones made out of far right nationalists who wanted to occupy Poland and were glad of Polish population serving as slaves as declared by Stauffenberg? Another reason not to source him on Poland I am afraid. I see no reason why more neutral modern sources shouldn't be used.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If replacing him with 'more neutral sources' means for the introduction of PRL propaganda pamphlets, then it's not worth the effort. You'll just provoke conflicts. And as to Stauffenberg supposedly declaring he wanted Poles to serve as slaves, please keep such nonsense to yourself. Even the Soviet era books I possess, highly critical of the 1944 plotters, would emphasize he was 'more progressive' amongst the 'generally right-wing' conspirators of 1944. Let's stick to the point and that is - Ritter is a good enough source for us, many Germans were conservative at the time (and many were communist, too), he's often cited (as evident through Google.scholar search) and published by a respectable publishing house. Even if there are some problems, these are fairly minor, compared with the obscure Polish authors you tend to cite, some of whom even doesn't have an article in Polish Wikipedia, let alone having a book of theirs published by University of California Press . Nevertheless, if you have good English language sources to offer us, you are very welcome to do so, of course.16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!)
 * "please keep such nonsense to yourself" - exactly. Please read nationalistic Stauffenberg's texts rather than claiming he was a saint.Xx236 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ritter is a good enough source for us-hmmmm "us" ? What group that you belong to you are you talking about? As to Stauffenberg-that is easily sourced(The population[here in Poland]is an unbelievable rabble, there are a lot of Jews and a lot of cross-breeds. It is a people which only feelsgood when it is under the whip. The thousands of prisoners will do our agricultural economy good.-Stauffenberg. "He was endorsing both the tyrannical occupation of Poland and the use of its people as slave labourers"-from Resistance and Conformity in the Third Reich Martyn Housden), although not for this article. As to Ritter-a nationalist ideologist that supported idea of Germany ruling over Europe is certainly not a good source about info about Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There were also several French "humanists" financed by Frederic and Catherine the Great.Xx236 (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If “Voltaire's animosity towards Poland and Catholicism” is the issue you're driving at, then this is not the appropriate place for that. We have Frederick II here ;-). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Voltaire was quite excited to show his appreciation to Frederick and eager to please his patron with most offensive attacks against Poles as well as praising Frederick's own insults-much of their correspondence was focused on obscenities and ethnic attacks against Polish people-can be sourced and probably will.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ritter was rather right-wing, but I think the real issue is that he wrote a very long time ago (we cannot exclude work by reputable historians simply because we disagree with their politics). Surely there must be more recent sources than Ritter which discuss these issues, preferably ones in English. For instance, there's Christopher Clark's recent history of Prussia. john k (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. And actually the fact his book was once widely cited by some Polish strongmen here on-Wiki really indicates the work is probably not too one-sided. Problems only started once I had found some passages that were not that critical of his rule :). But then again, I don't object to newer sources, if one finds those. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Clark's recent history of Prussia.-oh he has been criticised as viewing Prussia by rose-tinted glasses. Certainly not a neutral source.  And actually the fact his book was once widely cited by some Polish strongmen Who and were may I ask? Would like to see this. I remember giving some numbers from the book-which I now regret seeing its nationalists undertones, but only numbers. But since I am of German origins surely you don't mean me :) Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clark's book is of major importance and has generally been very well-reviewed. Clark himself is a prominent scholar and a professor of modern European history at Cambridge.  Once you start dismissing books like that because they disagree with your POV, it gets hard to think that you are not POV-pushing.  Is Clark likely to be write about everything?  No historian is.  But his work would be a good starting point.  If there is substantial disagreement among historians about this issue, perhaps you could note a historian whose work is available in English who supports your view of the matter. john k (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note, the sentence under dispute is actually cited to Koch rather than Ritter. Still an old work.  Volunteer Marek  21:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But while we're discussing Ritter just wanted to note that when it comes to economic matters the guy's a neo-mercantilist of the kind that you'll rarely find among modern historians and almost never among economists or economic historians (truth be told it seems more to me that Ritter was so enamored with Frederick that he felt it necessary to laud the man's economic policies whatever they were, rather than starting from a neo-mercantilist position to begin with). FtG's economic policies have been criticized (mostly, not all of them) from the economic point of view not necessarily for any kind of nationalist bias but because in fact, they were mercantilist. As a quick example Ritter gives Fred's support for the silk industry which he says was raised to "considerable - if somewhat artificial - prosperity". What actually happened was that Fred basically kept propping up a completely inefficient industry with taxpayer money for sake of prestige alone. The usual way to describe such a policy is "wasteful" rather than "artificial prosperity", particularly since the money spent on keeping the silk producers going could've been more wisely spent elsewhere.  Volunteer Marek  21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And as long as we're using old works, here's a particular "oldie but a goodie" wtr to Fred's economics. Provided mostly for contrast with Koch's and Ritter's economic ignorance.  Volunteer Marek  21:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

RE:Molobo (after EC) - As for Christopher Clarke also having “been criticised as viewing Prussia by rose-tinted glasses” (is there actually anyone outside Poland, who hasn't been, by your logic?), make sure at first that you don't repeat your April 2008 fiasco, - kann Dich teuer zu stehen kommen, Du deutschstämmiger Kumpel. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Role in German nationalism and myth of Frederick
There probably should be section about that-he played a large role in German nationalism, and his rather severe and flawed rule that resulted in much hardship for unfortunate subjects was idolised by some German nationalist writers, that had an imprint on his portayal in historical works. This is I believe quite a significant issue that deserves a mention in seperate paragraph.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Frederick II Descendent and Heir: William (Wilhelm) IX
I feel obligated to point out a seeming discrepancy concerning Frederick II but hope, by sharing it here, to foster a resolution. This article contends that Frederick's "involuntary matrimony did not lead to children and after becoming king, Frederick largely ignored his wife." It also claims that because he had "no children of his own, Frederick was succeeded by his nephew as King Frederick William II of Prussia."

While his nephew does appear to have inheritied the Prussian throne, at least two other sources (the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia) cite a 'son', William (Wilhelm) IX succeeding Frederick II as crown prince of Hesse-Cassel (Hesse-Kassel).

Please see the Catholic Encylclopedia under "Hesse" at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07298c.htm for the following reference:

"His son, William IX (1785-1821), in accordance with the Peace of Lunéville, received rich compensation (mostly in ecclesiastical territory) for Rheinfels, ceded to the French, and was granted in 1803 the title of elector."

And the Jewish Encyclopedia under "Rothschild" at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=445&letter=R for the following reference:

"he became an agent of William IX., Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, who on his father's death in 1785 had inherited the largest private fortune in Europe, derived mainly from the hire of troops". ..

Comments?

--gospelnous 04:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm...Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel was a different person from Frederick II of Prussia, as Prussia and Hesse-Kassel were two separate German states at the time. Notice that Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel died a year earlier than Frederick the Great, among other things. The two were, however, second cousins (Frederick of Hesse's maternal grandmother was a sister of King Frederick I of Prussia). john k 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Another error: He (Frederick II of Prussia) was not succeeded by Frederick William II, but rather Frederick William IV. His father was Frederick William III. Dgljr5121973 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Frederick the Great's father was Frederick William I of Prussia.  Frederick was succeeded by his nephew, Frederick William II (reigned 1786-1797); Frederick William II was succeeded by his son, Frederick William III (reigned 1797-1840), and he in turn was succeeded by his son, Frederick William IV. john k (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Frederick II of Prussia → Frederick the Great —. On the same grounds that Catherine II of Russia was just moved to Catherine the Great - it is the name by which he is best known and WP:NCROY explicitly provides an exception for cases like this. john k (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as the rest of the Prussian monarchs are as Monarch # of country & most cognomons (including this one) violate NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. We don't prohibit cognomons, as the nominator pointed out. As for POV, it's far more POV to depart from the standard, which in this case is to use the common name. Using the common name doesn't amount to expressing an opinion as to his greatness any more than the title French toast expresses a belief that it's French or toast (it's actually neither). If the articles on other Prussian monarchs slavishly follow the format suggested above rather than using common names, then some others should change too... Can you be specific as to which ones? Andrewa (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, as nominator. Also a comment - Reading over previous RMs, I note that in 2005, I voted against this very move, with a long explanation, and that in 2008 I weakly supported it but said I'd prefer a different title.  So I thought I'd briefly explain my change of mind here.  Basically, wikipedia itself has changed.  More and more monarchs have been moved out of the "Name Numeral of Place" format, and, as such, issues of consistency have become far less compelling.  Especially since we now have Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, it seems wrong not to have Frederick the Great. john k (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The recent pro-cognomon trend has been a big part of disrupting our once neat consistent set-up. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Better to try to apply these trends consistently than to insist on impeding any move in that direction while ignoring the countless analogous moves that have already taken place. john k (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even better to reverse all those 'cognomon' titles back to Name # of country. We'll just have to agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do an RM at William the Conqueror or Charlemagne, then? john k (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change and appears to have done so here. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The nominator puts forward a good argument for moving this page. The Celestial City (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as in 2008. Here Frederick the Great and Frederick II should be about evenly matched, and our current guideline supports the systematic title unless there is a strong preponderance for the cognomen. If this move is made, the guideline should be reconsidered; whether it need be changed should be decided then. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. My searches (shown below in the Data section) indicate that "Frederick the Great" is comfortably ahead of "Frederick II of Prussia". Dohn joe (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Commonest name by a long way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Since it's not like there is a long list of Prussian kings (not compared to some monarchies, anyway), and we've already gone with Catherine the Great. On the other hand, it's not as if "Frederick II" is unusual and it has the benefit of placing him clearly within a line of Prussian kings. Srnec (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the google Ngram presented by user:dohn joe in the section below is convincing. walk  victor falktalk 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, common name, will let most people who the article is about.--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the common name is Fredrick II. As Common Name instructs, other encyclopedias should be consulted and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/217849/Frederick-II shows that this is the common name in an encyclopedic register. They also disambiguate with "of Prussia" in their search engine.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He was "the Great" to some and the opposite to many others, therefore not objective name. Also most common name is "Frederick II of Prussia". Gryffindor (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Titling the article "Frederick the Great" does not endorse the greatness of the subject - it only reflects the title that most people would look to find him. On that point, I think the evidence is fairly clear that "Frederick the Great" is much more common than "Frederick of Prussia" - do you have evidence showing otherwise? Dohn joe (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with any of these monarchs being called "the Great", considering the multiple wars they initiated (especially this fellow), the people they oppressed (Polish Partition), even if it was "enlightened" at the same time. "Frederick II of Prussia" is fine enough, he was great to some and just awful to others. Renaming this to "the Great" is neither objective nor neutral. Gryffindor (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I have always heard about him as Fredrick the Great, and the data below seems pretty clearly to suggest that he is most commonly known by that name in literature.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Data
This ngram suggests that Frederick II is actually somewhat more common is modern usage; whether or not this is true, it denies the sort of preponderance we now require. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These search terms both include of Prussia; remember the several other princes of this name and number, one of them of comparable historic importance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis, the imperial author of De arte venandi cum avibus had absolutely nothing to do with the Slavic Prussian tribes (whose area would not become a kingdom until half a millemium later). I agree with dohn joe that "Frederick the Great of Prussia" is not the adequate search phrase. walk victor falktalk 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But doesn't searching for "Frederick the Great of Prussia" eliminate all the (rather frequent) instances when he is referred to as simply "Frederick the Great"? That seems like a major distortion which throws the value of the exercise into question.  Even your chart shows "Frederick the Great of Prussia" predominant except from 1955-1975 or so.  Just doing "Frederick the Great" (which always refers to this Frederick) and comparing to "Frederick II" (which does not) shows that the latter has never been more noticeably more common. That's a neat little feature, btw, although I'm not sure it's finely tuned enough to be very useful. john k (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is also quite frequently called just Frederick II; in most contexts, the century is obvious. The change over time is not surprising to me; about the middle of the last century, civilized men stopped reading Carlyle - and we are writing an encyclopedia for this century. (If the gadget had NEAR Prussia, I would be much happier with the results - but even as they are, I don't believe Frederick the Great is surprising if absent, which is our present standard.)   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, he is often referred to as "Frederick II", but there are other common uses for that term, which, all put together, have never been as common as "Frederick the Great". I also think that "Frederick II of Prussia" is bound to have an advantage over "Frederick the Great of Prussia" that mere references to "Frederick II" are not going to have.  At any rate, do you think it makes much sense to have Catherine the Great and Frederick II of Prussia?  My basic feeling is that we should treat comparable cases comparably.  It was recently decided to move the former, and, as such, I don't see any reason not to move the latter as well, because the cases are precisely comparable.  I don't much like having a mishmash of names where there's no clear reason for similar cases being treated differently except differences in who votes in move discussions. john k (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Books shows us 272,000 results for "frederick the great" -"frederick ii of prussia", and only 14,500 results for "frederick ii of prussia" -"frederick the great" - a commanding majority for "the Great". Dohn joe (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, changing the ngram to compare the versions of the title actually at issue here - "Frederick II of Prussia" and "Frederick the Great" - also shows a large difference in favor of "the Great". Dohn joe (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added POV tag
I added POV tag:Repeated removal of sourced material, usage of pre-WW2 publications by acknowledged German nationalist writer as source of information, manipulation of sourced content.Untill these issues are corrected the article can't be seen as neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per a recent comment by a neutral party, regarding you dismissing scholarly sources left and right, as soon as they do not concur with your own sentiment, one could just as well say your 'POV concerns' have more to do with the old story of the man who's crying “Stop the thief!” first. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncritical usage of German nationalist source or without attribution is not acceptable, and neither were they uncritically accepted by third party. I suggest you drop the insults towards my person. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Prussian Policies in Partitioned Poland
Frederick repeatedly emphasized that nationality and religion were of no concern to him And I guess that's why Prussian tax system under Frederick was based on nationality criteria? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop titling article sections "Heh"? john k (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't remember if it would be of help, but Iron Kingdom, by Christopher Clark, is a very good book (and recent, 2006). I have taken the liberty of renaming the section. Nice alliteration, isn't it? walk victor falk<i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it has been mentioned before. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ritter
Ritter worked on Nazi propaganda book before WW2 where he wanted to and proposed to people in charge of the project to promote the worst possible view of Poland during Partitions. I again kindly suggest removing this nationalist writer from sources.Otherwise I believe we have to cover his background. Source:Germany turns eastwards: a study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich by Michael Burleigh. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As already said, Ritter was an opponent, rather than a supporter of Nazis. A number of positive reviews on his Frederick II biography have been pointed out. Conversely, what do we know of Jerzy Surdykowski whose book you're using at the moment to push your usual poorly written stuff into various articles (cf. edits to Partitions of Poland)? Can we access his books online? Do we have any English reviews (as we have in case of Ritter and, well, Clark?). Your tendentious and cherry-picked quotations - often some anecdotal stories that you pretend to convey some universal meaning which they in fact do not - that you enter in total disregard of the context, are IMO generally disimproving, rather than improving the article. Just take a look: Frederick the Great brought up 300.000 colonists on territories he conquered and enforced Germanization or Already during his early days Frederick detested the Poles and gave evidence to his prejudice against Polish people;in a letter from 1735 he calls them "dirty" and "vile apes" . Anyone who compares such 'additions' with the generally well-written contents of the page should understand, that you're either posting such material at wrong places, or shouldn't post them at all. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop the insults, and the mantra "He opposed Hitler in 1944 so he isn't nationalist"-many people who turned against Hitler in 1944 as he lost the war, were nationalists and even Nazis. In case of Ritter his 1944 proposals for post-war Germany included things like stripping Jews of civil rights.Not to mention he worked with Nazis before the war anyway, and in 1944 told French people they have to "starve and obey". In any case I sourced his position with reliable modern scholarly book.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting anyone, but just trying to sum up the encyclopedic value of the text you've been pushing into various articles. You seem to be a SPA with the aim of blackening everything Prussian (or even German). I'm afraid that after 6 years here on-Wiki, the essence of your contributions has not changed. And as far as Ritter and Ingo Haar are concerned, a Ingo Haar is not an indisputable arbitrator here, but (at best) a second-rate German historian. Heinrich August Winkler's criticism of Haar's classification of Hans Rothfels is also known . Why is Haar's judgment on Ritter's work of more importance than that of Peter Paret (cf. Google hits for those two historians)? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Ingo Haar is a distinguished historian who specialises in research on German historians, a better source hardly exists. It seems this is a classic case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, combined with removal of scholarly resources. Which in fact can be provided in great numbers as Ritter is referenced as nationalists by several scholarly authors. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is Haar's judgment on Ritter's work of more importance than that of Peter Paret Peter Paret? Even he names Ritter as nationalist.An artist against the Third Reich: Ernst Barlach, 1933-1938 Peter Paret page 112.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that Ritter was a German nationalist. I just don't see how that's relevant. Everybody has political commitments, and Ritter's made him no less capable of writing useful history than anybody else. Writing propaganda for a political cause is one thing, and we should avoid such works as sources; but simply having a (currently very unpopular) political view that informs one's scholarship can't be a cause for exclusion, or there'd be no useful sources at all. I'm not sure why any of this is productive. Ideally we should not be using Ritter as a source, except maybe for narrative details. His work is old, and has been superseded. Both sides here should be trying to improve the article by making sure it reflects the judgments of recent scholarship, not arguing about Gerhard Ritter's politics. john k (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

John-Ritter is strongly mentioned as propagandist for Prussia, and he held anti-Polish view, while promoting an idolized view of Prussia and Frederick. To use him as a source that justifies Prussian action against Poland or tries to put Frederick in better light, seems wrong-especially since this is the exact same work he did under the Nazis before the war-he was responsible for part about Partitions in book that was to justify German rule in Central and Eastern Europe and he eagerly contributed(there are examples of his letter where he gloats about how he will deliver it "to the Poles"). The book was issued with a dedication to Adolf Hitler. To present this worldview here as objective is unacceptable.I propose to put this in seperate section where nationalist legacy of Frederick will be discussed and his reception among German nationalsit historians. In other cases we need to use Ritter with attribution, not as objective source. Some data can be salvaged but only some.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We should not present Ritter as being "objective," but, again, every historian has a POV. When I suggested looking at what Christopher Clark, a well-respected Australian historian who has no connection that I'm aware of to the Nazis, has to say on the particular subject of dispute, you said that he, too, is unacceptably pro-Prussian.  That's an untenable position.  No historian is going to be completely "objective," although obviously some will come closer to this ideal than others.  Unless you can point to particular errors of fact and analysis in Ritter that are pointed out in other reliable sources, we don't really have anything to talk about.  I have invited you repeatedly to suggest some alternative sources in English that you think are better than Ritter, and you haven't done so. john k (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality
Why there is no mention of Frederick´s homosexuality? Even Voltaire and Diderot wrote about it, it was highly commented in those times and there is apparently strong evidence of it. Shouldn´t at least be mentioned as a possibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardoch (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * it is mentioned. There's a whole section.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because I edited the article. There was none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardoch (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're saying that you replaced removed text then thanks for being vigilant. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Henri de Catt
I am surprised that there was no mention of his relationship with his tutor Henri de Catt, certainly the closest male friend he had for a couple of decades ... product of his trip to the Netherlands, which he may have considered invading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.224.224 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Decapitation of Katte
is it just a nice pseudo-historic legend? the biography of Peter Karl Christof von Keith (Katte) says that he escaped and was executed 'in absence'

[|Peter Karl Christof von Keith] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.45.3 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter Keith and Katte are two different individuals, please read this article !Ti2008 (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disneyland?
In the introduction to the article about Frederick the Great somebody (I assume that it was not the article's author) wrote that Frederick is buried in the Florida Disneyland. In the section about the King's burial it's stated that He's buried on the grounds of His palace. To my knowledge the latter description is correct so probably somebody made a joke. Or is there something we should know about :)? AdamSonnenberg27 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Batman
Rjensen - did you really just revert a piece of vandalism that said Frederick's father was "Batman" on the grounds that it is an "unsourced claim that he was gay"?! Are you serious? I pretty well suspect the vandal meant the fictional character Batman. I'm puzzled as to why you, however, thought that "Batman" was a reference to someone who is homosexual. And why your approach was to suggest simply that there is no source to support. Bizarre.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was reverting two edits, the Batman humor and also the previous more serious one, listing Fred. as [Category:LGBT royalty]. Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. It wasn't obvious from the action. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Steel Ramrod
Is there a section on the steel ramrod used by his troops which gave them an edge in the reloading rate of their muskets, or did I just miss it? Jokem (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=DzQjAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=steel+ramrod+frederick+the+great&source=bl&ots=mCQ0v3rm16&sig=VNi_Vg_RP043JvBtYnEaNqPf48c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ydAFUI6jEaf-2QX5_JmrBQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=steel%20ramrod%20frederick%20the%20great&f=false

http://www.scotwars.com/equip_smoothbore_musketry.htm

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm

http://www.britishbattles.com/frederick/battle-kesselsdorf.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

jumbled footnotes
Why do footnotes jumps so much, numerically? In the section "First partition of Poland" the sequence goes 31, 32, 33, 33, 33, 33, 34, 26, 25, 35, 25, 35, 36, 37, 25, 35, and 26. The next section, "Modernization," begins 35, 38, 39, 40. Is this deliberate? I think it should be cleaned up to be chronological.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is deliberate. It is a reuse of footnotes because the same footnotes are used for sourcing several different claims. Just press them with your mouse and you will be taken to the reference, a strictly chronological sequence as in books is not needed in an interactive text. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

ancestor of Fredrick the Great( Karl Barenkalu) Emmitt Dean Cook(Barenklau)
Noble blood runs through every Barenklau straight from Prussia, as I well know us, Barenklaus moved to the U.S. before World War I possibly even before the Civil War because of Monarchy was not very much kept together at the time thus Us loosing alot of lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.16.151 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Campaign ... gout"
Frederick William, weakened by gout brought about by the campaign....

How could gout could be "brought about" by a military campaign? I believe its causes usually are genetic or dietary. Sca (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

effete?
The article describes the young Frederick as "effete". That word means "weak" (it has the same root as fetus, referring to a woman's physical weakness after giving birth), but it's commonly used to mean "effeminate". Of course, we already have a word for that -- "effeminate". The writer should give a specific description of his character, rather than falling back on an overly general word. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ships
I wanted to add links to the three ships named after Friedrich der Grosse but have no idea how to do this with these automatic formats now used for these "x is about x, for y see here" on top. thestor (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

partitions
Re:. As far as Ritter goes, I don't know if he's been discussed or not. Let's discuss it again. From where I'm standing, the kind of racist crap he wrote could only be published in the 1950's or before. Add to that the fact he was an obvious nationalist and his Nazi collaboratin' past. Needs to go. Not fit for an encyclopedia.

Besides that - besides Ritter, why is Estlandia restoring text which obviously misrepresents a source (in this case Clark)?  Volunteer Marek  13:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)