Skip to main content

Talk:Frederick the Great

Jump to content

Talk:Frederick the Great

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFrederick the Great is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 9, 2021.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 15, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
May 21, 2021Good article nomineeListed
October 9, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 29, 2006, August 29, 2007, August 29, 2008, August 29, 2009, and August 29, 2010.
Current status: Featured article

Portrait crop[edit]

Not trying to rub salt into old wounds, but after viewing the uncropped version of Ziesenis' portrait of Frederick article I can't help but feel that using it rather than the cropped version would do Frederick more justice. We see full body paintings in quite a few articles such as Frederick William I of Prussia, so I was thinking Frederick the Great would be no different, any thoughts? Chariotsacha (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until Buidhe put this portrait up, I didn't know it existed. Having gotten used to it, it has some advantages and seems like a good portrait. Besides being the sole portrait from life, it has a more enlightenment feel. (Maybe because it is lighter?). I'd say the one advantage of the cropped portrait is that is more similar to what is expected for the Infobox portrait which is usually a face portrait. Also, I worry that another picture change will encourage another round of photo swapping. All that said, if there is a change to the full portrait, I'm good with it. As long as other editors are, that is. Wtfiv (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add the portrait and undo it so you can take a peek, I think it would be very dapper! Chariotsacha (talk)

17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

He does look dapper. Going back to the Great Elector, the preference for the image of Prussian ruling nobles in the infobox is a Wikipedia toss up. Though face-focused portraits dominate once photography takes over:

My main concern is if you choose the more full-body portrait it would lead to another edit flurry with the Graf and Camphausen face-focused works rotating in? Hopefully, other editors will weigh in too. (Maybe you can ping some of the more active editors for their opinion?) In lieu of any strong opinions about which version to use, I'll trust your judgement.Wtfiv (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buidhe: You put the Ziesenis portrait into the infobox, and I continue to think it was a great move for so many reasons. (Personally, it becomes a kind of guide for my editing: Being the sole portrait from life, it keeps the question "How does this edit reflect his life as record, as opposed to his image as projected?) However, Chariotsacha had the interesting idea that Ziesenis's uncropped portrait may be a better main portrait than the cropped. Figuring we're in the midst of an FA review anyway, this may be the point to make the change. If it passes...which is uncertain, of course...whichever image is there will become more of a standard. You picked the cropped originally and your strong editing really got helped the success of the Good Article review, so I'd like your thoughts on the issue if you have the time. Either way, I'm sure other editors here will maintain the stability of what is chosen. Thank you so much! Wtfiv (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the uncropped version is more fitting for the infobox. It gives Frederick more justice. Orson12345 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested reading[edit]

Hello Rjensen, I saw the addition of suggested readings. I think this may need a conversation, so I used WP:BRD. Does addition of another section which risks growing larger over time improvement the article, given that we just got this article to featured article status. I think it'd be good for interested editors to discuss if we need suggested readings. Suggested readings can be useful, but I also find the section problematic for the following reasons:

  • Suggested reading sections open up opportunities for large lists of items that seem more to advance individual agendas than issues related to the book. I'm not saying this is the case here, but sources that are directly and verifiably integrated as citations allow the citations to speak for the relevance of the source.
  • The article already has 149 sources, most of which are accessible, and most of which provide a lot of further reading.
  • In this particular case, two of the works were already given in in the sources. Putting them here would be redundant.

I'm not sure what the specialized topics add to the global article's focus. Again, it seems to me that if they are valuable they could be integrated into the specific issue within the article, combined with an attempt at making the citation verifiable. This strategy also implicitly provides a rationale why these works are worthwhile as further reading. It may indeed be a good way to go, but I think we need to discuss first.Wtfiv (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to add links to important scholarship. Sticking them in the main text will upset editors who have worked on getting feature status. My goal is to help student in university and advanced secondary schools who are writing class papers on this important topic --the 149 footnoted sources are full of very minor items that will waste student time (many just verify small points and have little info on Frederick.) Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that the list is more of a selection of what may be resources. In addition, others have been mentioned as well. Suggested reading always has that sense of the arbitrary. For example, one of further readings seems focused on CPE Bach and Frederick. Great material, I'm sure and good for a reference to an article on Frederick and music and maybe it could add a point to the section on music, but it isn't clear why it would be further reading. And students in the advanced schools would still have to get access to copies when it isn't even clear why the work is further reading. And, as mentioned, I don't think highlighting a source as further reading is clear.
I think the Clark and Storring articles illustrate the problem well. I like both Clark's book and Storring's article. Clark has a great writing style, IMO. But Clark is really describing Prussia as a whole, Frederick is a major walk-on character and symbol for a much bigger story. Storring is the opposite. It is really arguing about military science, the core of his dissertation thesis is that Frederick's "innovations" were extensions of the French innovations of the previous generation, but this small point on one aspect of Frederick is explicitly mentioned in the article.
I'd imagine that Blanning, Asprey, MacDonogh or Fraser- all easily accessed biographies focused on Frederick make better "Further Reading". (I'm using these only to serve as an example of the problematic of "Further Reading". Let's see what other editors think... Wtfiv (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think in terms of readers (esp students), not merely in terms of Frederick. If they are really interested in music of 18c Germany, then political biographies are not helpful. Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have the same goals, I think. My objective was to make every source a potential "further reading" resource. Over 80% are accessible to people without an academic relationship. And, the citation functions as an annotation for why the citation is useful and where it fits in. The only hurdle to the reader/students, is that they actually have to read the article and track the citation, or scan the sources. But when it comes to Frederick, suggested reading could get huge. And "suggested reading" is one of those sections that can be added to arbitrarily. I've seen them expand to include self-published book, quasi-vanity press books, tangential articles that serve to highlight the link to an author in a week that looks very much more like self-promotion. (That's not true in your case, but it does open up the door for later additions.) Many are not obtainable except through purchase or a university-quality interlibrary loan. That's why I think tying it to a citation, keeping it in sources, and making it verifiable is so important.
By the way, while we are talking. I'm glad you insisted we kept the currency issue in the article. It's a bit complex, but fascinating. And I think we were able to smoothly integrate it and could pull it together to make the sources to make it work. And I'm also appreciative for an early revert you did. It encouraged me to keep working to make as many citations as possible linkable. It's made this article stronger, though the side effect is that the underlying philosophy has brought our conversation here. As I edit other articles, I'm finding this verifiability is critical. Most citations are good ones, but a great deal don't reflect the point made in the article's text. And most suggested reading sections seem quite arbitrary and often less than helpful. (Only rarely do I find a source I can verify, and when I do access it, it's not always clear it is a reliable or relevant source.)
Beyond this article, the role of "Suggested Reading" seems to me to be a good conversation for the larger Wikipedia community, too. Wtfiv (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
very well said. I differ on one point. Casual readers --who spend a minute or two on this article looking for basic facts--comprise the majority of "hits." However it's mostly the serious students who plan to do further reading. Many tens of millions of them have access (through campus libraries) to scholarly resources and their needs should get the priority in "further reading" in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't the hallmark of a serious student one who would use the in-text references for further research? And unlike a book, most of these are made convenient via linked access. [User:Wtfiv|Wtfiv]] (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in this case the student has no choice in the matter--and most of the cites would be dead ends in terms of good undergraduate-level topics. That is they have NOT been selected with students in mind and many have only brief comments on Frederick. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I agree regarding these references, as I know most of them well. There's no doubt the degree of coverage varies, but a great deal of the references in this article go into great detail, and better yet. provide outstanding references in their own right. The best can be identified by their titles. These sources would be a rich trove for undergraduates, and better yet- the advanced secondary students who wouldn't be able to access these otherwise. Wtfiv (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest the best way to help students sis to have a "further reading" section -- it should certainly include selected duplicate titles from the Sources section. "The best can be identified by their titles" is not true for students doing their first historical papers. Rjensen (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel the sources is the best "Further Reading". I'm sure the ones you choose are one's you felt were ideal, but I still feel "Further Reading" sections tend to open up the door to arbitrary choices and the insertion of self-promotion. Thus, they become unhelpful. That's what I've seen in my edits: particularly for articles that loose their good article and featured article status over time. I'm certainly uncomfortable gatekeeping the further reading. The best that could occur is a consensus discussion that each item is indeed worthy. On the other hand, The readings have proven themselves by being useful as sources. And, again, they can be accessed for verification. There rarely is a systematic reason for inclusion. Thus, these sections can be misleading for such students you are thinking of. Particularly if it just gets them to go for some poorly sourced work. It'd be great if others would weigh in here. Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katte image[edit]

Hi, Peleio Aquiles added another image to the file. It is was an image of Hans Hermann von Katte. There are already a lot of images on this page, all directly related to Frederick II. I'm not sure why an image of Katte should be in the article rather than someone like Voltaire, who had a much more in-depth relationship with Frederick, or his brother Henry, who was his intimate. For now, the image has been removed pending discussion. The Katte image is still available to people who click the Katte link. but if it needs to in this article too, it may need to be discussed. Wtfiv (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In many other pages pictures of people close to the subject are used, why not this one? This is one of the only large biographical entries that I can think of where *none* of the pictures inserted are of friends, love interests, and so forth, and all depict *only* the subject. And that was what I was trying to remedy by including Katte's picture. And I don't think it's fair to fret over this ONE addition. Is the subject of Frederick's relationship with Katte by itself uncomfortable to you? — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've tended to have alot of problems over images in this article so thats likely why we are having the discussion here, as there have been a myriad of image changes. I'll drop my two-cents for the sake of consensus, I think the portrait itself is fine but it may be cluttering- we do not have one of Peter Karl Christoph von Keith as he is a small part of his life for this reason, but there is still one present in his own article. Wtfiv's point about Voltaire/Henry I also agree with- this article is about Frederick, it does not need imagery of all the intimiate men of his life- although this may be a very interesting addition for his sexuality article. As for Katte, although I do like more images, nor do I care much for the nature of Fredericks bedroom life, it does feel rather disruptive and I think it should remain off the article. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article is at the saturation point for images, and, if I were to add one more, this one wouldn't be at the top of my list. It's well meant, but I don't think it's an improvement. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frederick and Quantz[edit]

The section dealing with his musical endeavors needs some cleaning up. It even directly contradicts info in the Quantz article, calling Quantz his "music tutor in his youth," however:

The Queen of Prussia was impressed and wanted to hire him for her son. Though August II refused, he allowed Quantz to travel to Berlin and Bayreuth twice a year. [From the Quantz article]

Two lessons a year hardly makes him his music tutor, and besides what is more important is Quantz joining Frederick II's court in 1741 as composer, flute teacher, and flute maker and staying until his death over 30 years later. Somehow that is glossed over.

It also means that C.P.E. Bach's and Quantz' tenures overlapped at court for over 25 years, and it seems a shame we have no comments about how the two extremely renowned musicians and composers worked and collaborated together, or if they didn't get along. It would be similar to if Liszt and Paganini were both hired by the Austrian Emperor in their day, both great advancers of their respective techniques, and famous all over Europe.

I hope someone will decide to look this up, but in the meantime I'm considering editing the note about Quantz to "occasional music tutor in his youth, and later court composer, flute teacher, and flute maker." Deliusfan (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deliusfan The original statement matched the cited sources, but you are right, Quantz could only make occasional visits and couldn't be the primary instructor. So, I updated the statement, which still aligns with the citations, and added a clause about Quantz becoming Frederick's court composer supported by a citation from Reilly's introduction. I think an entire article Frederick's court could be written. Not only did he have an overlap of highly talented musicians, but as the Menzel painting illustrates, he also had extremely renown French intellectuals, such as Voltaire, Algoretti, and d'Argens who sometimes collaborated and often didn't get along. Wtfiv (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done, that is much clearer. And I do hope as well that an article on Frederick's court can be written; he clearly is a Renaissance man cut from the same cloth as France's Louis XIV; what Louis did for ballet and opera as an aspiring dancer, himself, Frederick did for instrumental music and literature. Deliusfan (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portrait[edit]

1781 portrait
1763 painted sketch

Why isn't this portrait used? Contemporaries found it to resemble him the most. For this reason it is the most used one in other Wikipedia editions as well, including the German Wikipedia. Synotia (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Graff portrait of Frederick in his later years (nearly 70 years old) is used in the article around the time when Frederick was that age. But the consensus was that Ziesenis portrait best represents Frederick during the most active phase of his life. It is painted from life, and represents Frederick at mid-life (around 50 years old) during one of the key moments in the middle of his reign, the point that the Seven Years War had come to an end. The Graff portrait might have been the best representation of him as an older man, but, as mentioned, the Ziesenis, which was painted from life, represents the younger man at about the time he successfully concluded the war with the Treaty of Hubertusburg.
For a history of the discussion, see archived discussion. as well as its follow-up at the top of this talk page Wtfiv (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Following up, here's the article on the 1763 Portrait of Frederick II of Prussia, the painted study, that the painting was derived from. Frederick sat for it during three days in June, four months after the treaty established his place as a European power. Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fake Portraits[edit]

Kunst-Theodor, the new section you added "Fake Portraits" moves away from discussing the life of Frederick the Great, which is the focus of this article, so I reverted it. The information is interesting the section you added "Fake Portraits" was interesting, but it mand discusses representations of Frederick, not his life. It seems like it could go better into a new spin-off article on how he has been represented or memorialized. Wtfiv (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now created a new article on the Portraits of Frederick the Great. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Kunst-Theodor, I added a "See also link" for the article. Wtfiv (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_the_Great&oldid=1136263077"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more