Talk:Otto von Bismarck

Deletions
An editor removed 4,000 bytes of material from the article. While some of the edits were constructive, overall, the bulk of the edits did not improve the article, so I reverted to restore the material, asking the editor to come here and discuss their edits. Instead they re-deleted the material, citing WP:ONUS. However, ONUS is about disputed material, and the material that was deleted has been in the article for quite a while, so ONUS does not really apply, as the material is not in any realistic way "disputed."

What actually applies here is WP:BRD: the editor made a Bold edit, I Reverted, and now it's time to Discuss. I have asked the editor again, on their talk page, to discuss the edits, leaving the article in the WP:STATUSQUO version while the discussion goes on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your opinion on this edit, you should not have reverted changes to image placement that put it out of standard with MOS: "Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices." I'd also like to know what encyclopedic value a German language audio recording is to non-German speaking readers, what is the encyclopedic relevance of caricatures or coins such as those at right (apparently not important enough to actually discuss in article text), how "Last warnings and predictions" is WP:DUE, why we should use extensive quotes like the following when the information is already discussed in prose"Thus ended the extraordinary public career of Otto von Bismarck, who ... had presided over the affairs of a state he made great and glorious. ... Now the humble posture that he had necessarily adopted in his written communications with his royal master had become his real posture. The old servant, no matter how great and how brilliant, had become in reality what he had always played as on a stage: a servant who could be dismissed at will by his Sovereign. He had defended that royal prerogative because it had allowed him to carry out his immense will; now the absolute prerogative of the Emperor became what it has always been, the prerogative of the sovereign. Having crushed his parliamentary opponents, flattened and abused his ministers, and refused to allow himself to be bound by any loyalty, Bismarck had no ally left when he needed it. It was not his cabinet nor his parliamentary majority. He had made sure that it remained the sovereign's, and so it was that he fell because of a system that he preserved and bequeathed to the unstable young Emperor."
 * Note that there are 7(!) long blockquotes of Steinberg in BMK's preferred version. Talk about WP:UNDUE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that WP:ONUS does not mention adding content, it actually states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So if there is no consensus to include this content, it should be removed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In the context, "disputed content" obviously means content which someone is attempting to add to the aritcle, it is not intended to mean content which has become part of the status quo of an article by having de facto consensus by being in the article for a long period of time. Your interpretation of ONUS would mean that any deletion of material must be maintained while discussion goes on.  That has never been the case at en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A neutral notice of this discussion has been placed on the tlak ages of the WikiPRojects listed aabove. In addition, the top 5 editors listed by "Authorship" have been similarly notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support these removals, and for the reasons Buidhe has supported. Beyond My Ken says above that he supports much of them, too. I am left to wonder then why this particular act of boldness was arrested. I will add that overquotation, such as Buidhe highlights here, is not only undue, but raises copyright concerns. And is huge and ugly. – Vami ♜  _IV♠  07:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beyond My Ken that the deletions were excessive. The goal is to summarize the latest scholarship, and in this case the scholarly reviews are clear that Steinberg represents the consensus of scholars. Expressing that consensus is a hard task unless you know the scholarship in both English and German--Steinberg does it well. If an editor comes up with a BETTER summary of the consensus ok, but to erase a good summary and not replace it degrades the article. Rjensen (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be so, and for the record I believe you, but a copy and paste from Steinberg is a copyright violation. Proper use of quotations in regular prose is minimal. Wikipedia is to be written in totally original prose. Not copied. And even if Steinberg were an editor and dropped that quote in, that would be a conflict of interest and still copyright infringement. A position other than this demonstrates a lack of understanding of our policies. – Vami ♜  _IV♠  21:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is that "a copy and paste from Steinberg is a copyright violation." Well no--Wiki quidelines allow for quotations from publications if the amount is not excessive relative to the source. In this article we use about 950 words from Steinberg's 550 page book (about 2 pages). The Wikipedia guideline is WP:COPYQUOTE" Quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words. This page sets out guidelines for using quotations in Wikipedia articles....it is generally permitted under fair use rules in the United States. However...fair-use quotation has limitations: The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted....What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work, and the importance and relevance of the quoted text to that work." Here what the quote allows is a presentation by a leading scholar of the established consensus among scholars. Wiki editors cannot do that very well: none of us is 1% as familiar with the literature as is Steinberg, who spent years pouring over the scholarship. .Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The extensive quotes should be removed, as the article's prose should be able to speak for itself. The sheer length of these quotes may also constitute a copyright violation. Furthermore, the excessive images could be placed in spin-off articles. While this article does not have that many, it could easily support a few more. Meanwhile, the section on his predictions seems to frame him as having been clairvoyant. That is unacceptable. Finally, the recording is fine where it is. It is the one surviving recording of his voice. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the suggestion is that quotes should be removed, as the article's prose should be able to speak for itself.. Well no--it's really quite hard to summarize a major career in a short paragraph like Steinberg did. He spent a few years thinking out the problem and Wiki editors spend a few minutes. The goal is helping our readers with the best possible coverage of one of the most important historical figures. (As for fair use the excerpt are already on line at google books --released by the publisher.) Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of scholarly quotations. Our purpose here is to create a tertiary work that presents notable subjects in our own words. To do anything else is to violate our guiding principles as the editors of an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, I dispute the idea that the lengthy Steinberg quotations are in some way impossible to summarise. If I was writing a Bismarckian historiography, I would not have included those massive quotes. Instead, I would summarise the work in my own words. There is no need to quote large passages when you could easily summarise them in a few short sentences, assuming that you need to summarise those passages at all. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Our role as Wikipedians to to summarise RSs in our own words, not cut and paste from them. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The block quotes need to go. See MOS:QUOTES"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ..."
 * TGhe argument above is that "There is no need to quote large passages when you could easily summarise them in a few short sentences," -- easily -- no that is really hard to do unless the wiki editor is a very good wriotrerf and a solid expert on Bismark--and even then the article loses the authority of state of the art scholarship. That is, it weakens the article and deprives the readers of the best ideas. Rjensen (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding his title
Should we list Bismarck in the infobox as "The Prince of Bismarck"? Векочел (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please neutrally present the evidence, pro and con. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have provided a few sources from Google Scholar that describe him as prince: 1, 2, 3, 4. Векочел (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether he was a prince or not isn't an open question here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 His Serene Highness  Otto von Bismarck  The Prince of Bismarck  So, that's what I would suggest using. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging from previous discussion, above, it looks like the following would be most consistent with other articles:
 * I don't see any reason not to. Are there policies or guidelines besides BLP related to this? CurryCity (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a written guideline, but the general consensus for European politicians who happen to hold noble titles seems to be to list their title as their name. See the articles of Margaret Thatcher, Cardinal Richelieu, and Klemens von Metternich for a few examples. Векочел (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that’s mistaken, usages vary and it may be more complex as nationalities and the era of transition to the modern democracies may play into it - see Kálmán Tisza, Bettino Ricasoli, Ramón María Narváez or F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you feel the need to include Bismarck's titles in the infobox in addition to his name (as suggested by ), that's fine. My objection is having the title replace his name in the infobox entirely. The only group of people who (as a whole) are identified primarily by their titles are members of the British aristocracy. There's no reason to extend the practice to politicians/nobles of other countries absent documentation from reputable sources showing they are commonly identified as such. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Our articles should be consistently doing what is best practice, not be subject to an artificial consistency of doing crappy practice found in other articles. It's confusing to readers when names in infoboxes are missing or badly mismatch what is in the title and the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK in addition to his name, although technically accurate would be Fürst von Bismarck, Graf von Bismarck-Schönhausen, Herzog von Lauenburg, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's already listed in the first sentence of the article. Векочел (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. As shown in the citations, he's more commonly known as Prince Bismarck in English. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

skillfully
I think this should be skilfully Stephengulliver (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

social legislation
template "main article" leading to "state socialism" is missing. Article "state socialism" is describing more of that content though the title is wrong. I already added comments on "state socialism"s discussion demanding changes in the title due to unprecise use of the term socialsm (marx theoretical definition and practical examples of socialist systems showed the governements property of productive factors such as factories, tools,...). WikiYeti (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Family
There's very little mention of his family, just a brief mention of his son at his deathbed. Oddly there is more about this in the article on this son. PatGallacher (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)