Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hasteur (talk | contribs) at 11:47, 10 June 2020 (→Comment on name change: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ex-King of Britain's visit to Nazi Germany

Ex-King of Britain's visit to Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Ex-King of Britain's visit to Nazi Germany/archive1

Nominator(s): ——Serial 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A bloody fool rather than an all-out Nazi, seems to be the consensus. Edward VIII, not me, that is :) Something rather different from me, this will hopefully complement our already-featured article on the King, which, of course, could not give due weight to this curious—verging on the bizarre*—episode of his career.

I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. Prost! ——Serial 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

*Literally gatecrashing, for example, courtesy of their driver being plastered. ——Serial 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment on name change

• Oppose until a stable NPOV title is found --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The term "Nazi Germany" should be avoided if possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? It is the title of our article about that state, Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to bother Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany either. ——Serial 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason the main article is so named (WP:COMMONNAME), it is a slang term avoided by historians. Actually, the term "Ex-King of Britain" bothers me more; it is a poor description of the King-Emperor. I would prefer "Duke of Windsor", which is accurate, unique and concise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a talk page discussion on the preferred name, Hawkeye7, where your input would be appreciated by all. ——Serial 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

By my count, there are 15 books in the Nazi Germany#Bibliography section referring to the state as "Nazi Germany" in the title, so I would not say that the term is avoided by historians. But in any case, that discussion belongs to Talk:Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as current title discussion (including an appeal at WP:AN) indicates this does not have title stability yet. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• On "British government", you pipe to National Government (1935–1937) The Windsor marriage and thus the visit was after Baldwin left office, which at least our article treats as the termination of the National Government.

Changed link to [[National Government (1937–1939).

• "Windsor was a known admirer of all things German." Perhaps something could be said here about the heavy German influence in the royal family.

Excellent idea: added a footnote explaining the German roots of the family and the reasons for the new name.

• "One of Windsor's own supporters, Chips Channon—Conservative MP for Southend West—commented in 1936 that the Duke "is going the dictator way, and is pro-German"." This seems a bit duplicative of what was said earlier in the paragraph. I'd also omit the "own". Be careful of tone: there is no need to pound the point home that going to Nazi Germany on a visit such as this was a bad idea, it is today self-evident.

I swung this around and broke it up a bit, some of it going into the historiography section, for example.

• Regarding studying industrial affairs, it might be mentioned that Windsor had at least the reputation of someone concerned with the problems of the working classes, "Something must be done".

Yes, fair point, again: classic quote the something must be done; apparently Balders tore him off a strip over it!

• "men such as Bedaux" You haven't yet established who he is.

The source names Bedaux, but we don't need to; changed to "associates", which conveys the general lacklustre nature of his advice.

• "Windsor was keen to restore his public image and standing," Isn't this similar to what you say at the end of the previous section, "This way, argues Adrian Philips, Windsor intended to rebuild himself a public position."

Tweaked it slightly, but I want to keep the sense that in the past, this is what he wanted to do, and was subsequently given the opportunity to do so.

• Nazi Germany is not linked on first mention.

Done.

• Le Meurice Probably does not need italics. Also, later, "Academy for Youth Leadership".

Done.

• "The Windsors' hotel suite in the Le Meurice became the focus for its organising, and many different contacts and visitors visited. " What is "it" in "its organising"? The tour?

Indeed, I've reworded.

• " In a telegram to the Foreign Office, the Duke statednIn accordance with the Duke of Windsor's message to the world press last June that he would release any information of interest regarding his plans or movements, His Royal Highness makes it known that he and the Duchess of Windsor are visiting Germany and the United States in the near future for the purpose of studying housing and working conditions in these two countries.

— Edward, Duke of Windsor" You're saying who wrote it twice.

Of course, removed.

• There should be spaces either side of ellipses.

I have literally never read that before1 Embarrassing, but Done.

• "The first indication of this was on their arrival at Berlin's Friedrichstraße station on 11 October. The historian Susanna de Vries has described how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal" on their arrival;" "on their arrival"/"on their arrival"

Lost the last arrival.

• "German media set great store by the Windsors' visit, and the Duke responded with full Nazi salutes. " He responded to stories (?) with Nazi salutes?

Yes, that's daft isn't it; you're right about over-egging the salutes, so I got rid of this mention and found some interesting thing wrt German perception of the duke.

• "The journalist Andrew Morton suggest that the couple" Not sure if you were going for "suggests" or "suggested".

Suggests, as it goes.

• "The Windsors dined with his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the 19th, which was attended by over 100 guests including." "his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" may be too royal-speak. We are also waiting to hear who the guests included.

Inserted a duke of. I think there was more in between the two points which has got lost, but the source doesn't actually list any anyway.

• "Prince Phillip von Hessen" The spelling of Phillip seems at variance with our article on him.

I just went by the source.

• "Their telephones were bugged by Prince Christoph of Hesse, on the orders of Reichsstatthalter Hermann Göring, for the duration of their visit;" I'm not sure what "for the duration of their visit" adds.

True, removed.

• the Nazi leadership was kept fully informed on events at every stage of the tour." I expect this is British English so should "was" be "were"?

Yeeeas...done.

• "This made particularly easy, argues the modern historian John Vincent, as the German government were funding the visit." missing word in early part of sentence, you are inconsistent in capping "German Government".

Standardised.

• "During the men's' discussion," I'd lose one of the apostrophes.

Done.

• "The couple were repeatedly greeted with the Nazi salute; the Duke reciprocated in kind, a number of times and which made him appear sympathetic to their views. " Some awkwardness in sentence. I also note you've mentioned him making Nazi salutes before. If you are going to place such emphasis on this, you might want to footnote that this was hardly unheard of, for example the English football team in Berlin in 1938, nor greatly controversial at that moment.

Excellent point. I've reduced the number of times I mention the salutes to just this one, per weight, and added a footnote pointing out how common it was, incl. the football reference. Cheers.

• "Lord Halifax" I would at least mention he was a cabinet minister.

And linked.

• "captured by the allies" Should allies be capped/linked/both?

Both.

• "Another interpreter present, Paul Schmidt, later described his memory of Hitler's and the Duke's meeting:" You at least imply there was no interpreter present for the meeting between Hitler and Windsor. This bit comes as a surprise. And I don't see any need to have Schmidt sign the quote that follows.

Removed the sig; not sure how to get around the presence of the interpreter. Indeed, it struck me when I ws writing i that it seemed odd for them to need an interpreter; but Windsor would have spoken classical German I suppose, and Hitler probably the argot of Vienna (?) so maybe. On the other hand, he could have been there more as a witness or minute taker; but unfortunately, the source uses "interpreter".

• "Gauleitung" this may confuse the reader, with no link.

Linked.

• "Baldwin's government attempted to manage the public relations issues surrounding the visit, " Atop the greasy pole, for all the good it did him, was Chamberlain, by the time of the visit for some five months, I reckon.

Yep. Already changed that final photo but forgot about this mention!

• Reactions, I would assume, should cover the reaction in the British press, surely. Did Chamberlain, or the FM (Eden) have anything to say?

I'm leaving that for now—will require researching.

That's it for now. Hopefully these can be cleared up. Interesting topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Always good to see you Wehwalt, and thanks for these suggestions, particularly maintaining NPOV etc, they've led to some interesting additions. Cheers! ——Serial 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Very interesting topic!

• Be careful of consistency: First World War / Second World War vs. World War One vs. World War I. Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Although royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that": Could I suggest "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that"? Otherwise I'm not sure that it's a complete sentence. Using "Although" in this way is okay in spoken English, but I'd argue it's not totally correct in written English. Moisejp (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Moisejp thanks for this points, which I've addressed. You're definitely correct in the first and probably in the second :) if you can think of anything else that would improve the article, let me know! Cheers, ——Serial 08:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Oppose. Tone is far too flowery for a neutral encyclopaedia article. I've only thoroughly read the lead but that read like an editorial piece. For example, we have statements like it may be that he saw himself in the role of peacemaker, The government suspected, correctly,, the highlight of their tour, and lack of good advice he received rather than outright Nazi leanings in Misplaced Pages's voice. The last needs better attribution than "modern historians". As for the rest, it's not for Misplaced Pages to tell the reader how he may have seen himself, that the government was correct, or that the meeting with Hitler was the highlight; we just summarise the facts from the reliable sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Where the sources draw conclusions about things like motives, those should be included with in-text attribution. I'm not seeing so many problems further down the article, but I am seeing a lot of linking of commonly understood terms and Easter-egg links, and a lot of places where the prose could be tightened to better meet 1a. It's a fascinating bit of history and I'm glad to see it getting some attention but I think there's work to do yet before it's of FA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for this; a question though. Would you mind if I gave your review one-tenth of the attention I have given other reviewers, or would you consider that very rude of me indeed? ——Serial 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it rude, but I would be more inclined to come back and offer a full review if I saw that you were noting and addressing my preliminary concerns. I tend to be thorough in reviewing a relatively small number of FACs rather than spending a little time across a lot of articles, so there would be little point in investing several hours in reading and reviewing if the nominator and I were not going to see eye to eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that dropping a bald oppose like that is the subtlest or surest way of ensuring we see eye-to-eye.Having said that, your points undoubtedly have merit. So: I have gone through and removed (four?) overlinks (honeymoon, unemployment for ex.). There may well still be possible overlinking, and I'll discuss that happily, but I am averse to removing apparently obvious links that may not be so obvious outside of the Anglosphere.Your concerns wrt to the contents of the lead are more tricky, not the least because this is all fully-sourced material (often direct quotation) from the article body. So d you think it needs citing? That would probably need a consensus, per CITELEAD.I'm currently giving it another prose run, mostly looking at run-on sentences, etc.All the best, ——Serial 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Meh. Forgot to ping. ——Serial 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-D

I don't think that I'll review fully, but would note that "Even so, says Vickers, Hitler made the Windsors "travel a long way to see him", as he was at his Bavarian retreat known as the Berghof" suggests that this historian was ill-informed. The Berghof was more than a "retreat", as Hitler more than a third of each year there, and foreign visits to it were a significant element of Nazi propaganda (see Bombing of Obersalzberg#Background). Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. To clarify, "retreat" was my word, not the authors. And to be fair, I can see their point: Everywhere the article mentions the Windsors' as going—Berlin, Karinhall, Pomerania—are all in the far northwest. The furthest south they (seem to have) ever gone was Essen. And that's still >800 KM from the Berghof. Having said that, it's not particularly encyclopedic information anyway, so I've got rid of it. That also allows a couple of sentences to be shortened. Also, although I already mention Halifax and Lloyd George visiting Germany, your suggestion re. the number of guests he received at the Berghof is well-made, and I've added a bit highlighting that anyone who was anyone was probably seen there at some point. Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated. ——Serial 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg needs a more extensive FUR, and would suggest using a different fair-use tag
• File:Oscar_Nathaniel_Solbert.jpg: the UK tag requires that the image include details of research done into authorship, and what's the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Neville_Chamberlain.jpg
• File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)