Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha edit

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 27 April 2024, 15:46 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward was born a British prince and had a quintessential upper-class Victorian upbringing. Nannies, governess, prep schools, Eton and regular visits to Granny Vicky. Until one day a succession crisis in a tiny German statelet changed his future forever. He was not the first candidate for the dukedom but German emperor (and cousin) Wilhelm wanted a boy he could mold into one of his henchmen and Charles Edward, whose father had been dead since before he was born, seemed like the perfect candidate. The teenaged prince had been put on path that would take him to strange, nasty places.

This is my first featured article candidacy. I have been working on this article sporadically over recent years, heavily in the past several months and done a lot research into this man's life. The article has been promoted to good status, informally and formally peer reviewed since december. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to review it, I will try to respond as fast as I can. Llewee (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to FAC! I'll open with an image review

done

  • Suggest adding alt text where it is missing

done

  • File:Groepsportret_van_de_familie_van_koningin-regentes_Emma,_anonymous,_1896_-_1897.jpg is missing information on first publication, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:Duke_Charles_Edward_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_with_wife_and_children.jpg

The first image is old enough to be assumed in the public domain. I've added a copyright tag specifying that. The second image has been given to the commons by the German archive.

The first one still has a tag based on publication date, so we still need info on first publication. On the second, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The United States section of List of countries' copyright lengths says that anonymous works enter the public domain "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" so it should be in the public domain by now whenever it was published. However, I'm not sure what tag to use to indicate that point.
  1. The 120 from creation piece only kicks in if it was first published after 1978, according to that table, so we'd still need to know when it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the relevant page on the source website. It says the picture's in the public domain. I'll update the page momentarily.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Okay, so why then are you adding a CC BY tag? I'm confused. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have got the right licence now.--Llewee (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sorry I got mixed up between images, I'm not quite sure how to interpret the second image, the source says (http://www.zeno.org/Zeno/-/Lizenz%3A+Gemeinfrei) it thinks the image is in the public domain but isn't sure. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since this is hosted on Commons, even if we take that as correct we'd still need to know US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same author problem exists with File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_136-B0556,_Karl-Eduard_von_Sachsen-Coburg_und_Gotha.jpg. Ditto File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg

I've looked up a translation of the source and it seems to have been taken by someone who died in 1913. I've added a translation

What about File:Landwirtschaftliche_Ausstellung_Coburg_Juni_1910.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I meant the second image, the first image was taken by someone who died in 1936. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha_in_the_German_Reich_(1871).svg: suggest clarifying the caption to specify which portion is the polity of interest - there are two shapes that could potentially be highlighted

Both are - one is Coburg and the other is Gotha. I've added a clarification of the relevant colour.

  • File:Gotha_Order_of_the_Garter.JPG: under US law replication of a 2D work doesn't garner a new copyright - this should be tagged for the status of the work pictured

I've added a UK government copyright template. I'm not sure if it also needs a US template?

No, but the source should be clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make the source and author sections more informative--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that these have been edited? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to publish the edit, done now.--Llewee (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ZIEL_ERKANNT!_12._Reichs-Frontsoldatentag_des_Stahlhelm_B.d.F._Breslau_30_31_Mai_1931_15_Propaganda_Erinnerungsschrift_(Commemorative_rally_book_of_Stahlhelmbund,_German_right-wing_paramilitary_organisation_1918–1935)_No_known_copyri.jpg: why does this have a CC license? I don't see that at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that image out now.--Llewee (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Nikkimaria, apologies for asking lots of questions, I'm not hugely fluent in copyright issues.--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the order of the Garter image and added File:"L'oncle de l'Europe" devant l'objectif caricatural - images anglaises, françaises, italiennes, allemandes, autrichiennes, hollandaises, belges, suisses, espagnoles, portugaises, américaines, etc. (14776736585).jpg.--Llewee (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a more specific tag available for this new image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more specific tags.--Llewee (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I've added an additional image to the article. File:Sibylla med Prins Gustaf Adolf och alla barnen.jpg

Drive by comment by Nick-D I don't think I'll have time to post full review, but the statement that "In March 1945, the German government formed a "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" of which Charles Edward was made chairman. This group was meant to negotiate with the Western Allies in order to gain better living conditions for the defeated Germans after the war. The committee members were in theory "uncompromised" Germans with fewer links to the regime. The quick collapse of Nazi Germany after that point meant that enough time was not available for negotiations" jumped out of me:

  • The first sentence is surprising given that the main body of what remained of the German Government (Hitler and his group in Berlin) was determined to go down in flames. Hitler sacked, jailed or killed anyone he found was engaging in negotiations of this type. Was this a committee formed by one of the breakaway elements of the government who recognised that the war was lost?
  • The last sentence is wrong as the Allies had a policy of insisting on the unconditional surrender of Germany, and they would not have engaged with this group (except to see if it could be used to bring about unconditional surrender) no matter how much time was available. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg: The German Red Cross and the Plan to Kill "unfit" citizens 1933-1945 pp 165-166" says;
In March 1945 Hitler asked Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to form a Committee for the Protection of European Humanity. Charles Edward was designated as chairman, and the group was supposed to represent "uncompromised" Germans in their association with the National Socialist government who could negotiate with the Western Allies to ensure tolerable living conditions for civilians in Germany after the war concluded. As president of the DRK, Charles Edward contacted ICRC Vice President Carl Burckhardt who agreed to act as an liaison with the British and American governments on the matter. The coordinated military thrusts from both East and West resulted in such a rapid collapse of the German military that the committee never really had time to begin fruitful negotiations with the foreign governments. Total surrender devolved by May 1945, and Hitler was dead (Zimmerman, 1980; Stauffer, 1991, 167-190, Stauffer, 1998, 350; Poguntke, 2010, 125).
Given the quality of the source I mainly just took its contents on trust. I suppose lack of time might be shorthand for not enough time for the allies to be asked and say no but I don't really know.--Llewee (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Ian Kershaw's book The End today, which is one of the standard works on the last period of Nazi Germany, and it confirms that Hitler didn't want to enter into any form of peace negotiations (aside from sort-of tolerating negotiations to end the fighting in Italy). There were multiple breakaway groups though that attempted this. As this topic seems to be outside of the book you're consulting's area of focus, I'd suggest cross checking these claims against more specialist sources, as I'm fairly confident that the author here is mistaken. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the book you referenced on Google books for uses of the phrase "Committee for the Protection of European Humanity" but none appeared. I can't find any relevant search results on this website or the wider internet. As the sources Rushton references are all German language sources I probably wouldn't be able to much information out of I think it might be best just to take the text out.--Llewee (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Nick-D, I forgot to link to you.--Llewee (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment. ... died ..., [[Haemophilia in European royalty|having suffered]] from [[haemophilia]] is a MOS:EASTEREGG violation (and perhaps one of MOS:SUFFER as well). You could write something like "... who was a haemophiliac like many other European royalty, died ..." but I am sure there is an even better way to phrase it. —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording now.--Llewee (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

I am interest to read the article again after the informal peer review. I will leave the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments, I'll work through them as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and family background

  • I think Family would be enough of a header.
    • I've done that and moved the detail about his birth to the childhood section.
  • I'd like to see both father and mother introduced before his father's death, and the titles the boy inherited at birth. Possibly even before the sister.
    • I've reorganised the section so that his parents are introduced first, then his sister and then the stuff about his father's death

Childhood

  • "He was then sent to school without his sister. His schooling took place at boarding schools." - I feel that these extremely short sentences could perhaps be combined, avoiding "school" - "schooling".
    • done

Selection as heir

  • I believe that the "colonies" in the image caption is not needed, as the two districts will not be expected in colonies.
    • ditto
  • ref order: I notice twice in this section that references are not in numerical order as expected, - didn't watch before, please check.
  • "... King William II of Württemberg, and found him a tutor. Later, Emperor Wilhelm organised ..." - it looks a bit strange to see two people with the same name so differently next to each other.
  • I can see that but it's based on the names the two men's articles use.
  • "He attended Bonn University. He studied law but ..." - I bet these sentences can be combined.
  • done

Marriage ...

  • "His entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography comments that they were happy, but Urbach indicates otherwise." - if the "happy" from the dictionary should be mentioned at all - how would they know - please find an abbreviation when it's mentioned first.
  • The dictionary entry does cite sources. I've added an abbreviation.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • "They are so sensible, 'wenn sie nicht verhetzt werden' (when they are not poisoned)", - I suggest to render the sentence in English, and give the German expression in brackets. I believe that "poison" is too ambiguous, - my dictionary has no good word for "verhetzen" but "incite" seems to work.
  • The quote uses different brackets than those usually used for translations by Urbach, so I think the duke might have decided to write the phrase in both languages in his letter.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family often do not appear happy in photographs." - I am not happy with that sentence, as a construction (The family often do not ...), and it contradicts the two photographs we can see ;)
  • "It is unknown whether it was true." - I feel that this sentence is redundant to "allegations".
  • "When they grew up, Charles Edward's children were often a disappointment to him in their choice of romantic relationships, ..." - I think it could be simpler saying that the their choice disappointed him, which would also make "when they grew up" redundant.
  • I've given the paragraph these previous few points refer to a general tidy up.--Llewee (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The marriage meant that Sibylla would be expected to become Queen of Sweden (which however did not happen)." - I seem to remember that we discussed that all this is implied in "second to the Swedish throne".
  • "The former duke began to look for political options he felt were tougher than the former emperor had been during the First World War." - sorry, I don't understand the meaning.
  • I've reworded this, is it clearer now?--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political ...

  • I think that the lead of the linked article gymnasium is better than the footnote offered.
  • Apologies if I'm mistaken but I assume the school types weren't the same in the 1920s. I've changed the footnote to something more general.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial diplomat

  • the dictionary again, - it should certainly not be linked again
  • done

Second World War

  • "Hubertus † fürs Vaterland" (Hubertus died for Germany). - no Vaterland means "fatherland", or home country, not Germany.
    • Apologies, I am aware that's the literal translation but I thought it would be easier for readers to translate it as Germany. I have changed it now.--Llewee (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "committed suicide" - I guess you are aware that the phrasing is contentious, - too close to "commit a crime"
  • done

Trial ...

  • dictionary once more
  • done
  • can we avoid "as a result" in two sentences in a row?
  • done
  • "Seaforth Highlanders" are mentioned five times, linked three of those (1,2,4) - perhaps check for duplicate links.
  • done

Death

  • "Elsässer Straße (Alsatian Street)" - if the street is needed (which I doubt) there's no need to give it italics and a translation.
  • done

General: the separation of personal and political life (under Far-right) makes for a tricky chronology - something to think about. I'll look at the lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now organised it into sections based on time period--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, infobox

  • I believe that the lead has some unneeded detail. It should focus on the subject.
    1. I don't need his father's cause of death, and even less that the father's condition was frequent in nobility, - that's for later, the latter perhaps not at all.
    2. Instead of "His paternal grandparents were Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.", an addition to the father as being the Queen's son might be enough to make the connection.
      • I'm reluctant to take out the reference to Prince Albert because I think the "of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is a helpful way of quickly conveying to the reader why a British prince might have been in the line of succession for a German dukedom.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        understand that now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)
    3. I didn't get "sickly" from remembering the body section, rather "the perfect little prince" ;) (but that may be just me).
    4. I don't think his children are lead material (beyond saying "five"), unless perhaps Sibylla. They have prime position in the infobox.
      • I've kept her but taken the rest out.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if we hit the reader with "Nazi politician" in the first sentence (on top of the uniform), we might want to add his position with the Red Cross and "unoffical diplomat" there, for perspective.
    • I've put the details about his Nazi positions into the first paragraph and moved down the content about his life as a kid. I've added a brief reference to his status as a British Prince to the first sentence as I think that's one of the most notable details to an English-speaking audience and necessary context to his diplomatic roll.--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he lost his English titles before the German ones which might be reflected.
  • "like the other German monarchs" - he was no monarch, and for "nobility", it's the wrong link.
    • Federal prince, I think this the right one?--Llewee (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks better to me. I know, however, very little about nobility, - others may have other ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (accidentally deleted comment)
  • I think his function as head of the Red Cross should somehow in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've embedded an officeholder box.--Llewee (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the comments, I tried the indenting also. Easy rule: when replying to something indented, copy that indenting. (If not the whole idea gets lost. Which may make it tricky for someone blind.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your return: reading the lead again after your changes, I like it much better. I suggest you introduce "a state of the German Empire" sooner, because that is so unexpected. I wonder if it would be better to mention in the first paragraph - which should be a rough overview - his functions in the Red Cross and as informal diplomat, and bring the details later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those changes.--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I don't know how else to say it. In the first paragraph, I'd just say he was leader of the Red Cross and an informal diplomat (to distinguish from a SS leader or minister). The details - that at the time the Red Cross was carrying out eugenic concepts - don't belong in the first few sentences, but rather the last para of the lead, and in not too much detail. Other than that, I'm ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done--Llewee (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was a pleasure, - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therealscorp1an edit

  • I have noticed the lead being brought up, but not this point: the lead currently exceeds "four well-composed paragraphs", which is prohibited per MOS:LEAD. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganised the lead now.--Llewee (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Llewee: "In 1899, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha decided on how to deal with the succession of Duke Alfred, who was in ill health. Duke Alfred's only son, Prince Alfred, had died in February 1899." These sentences may seem a little confusing. Specific dates are given as to when Prince Alfred died, but not for when the succession is dealt with. I would suggest changing it to "In late 1899, the House..." - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think its taken awkward wording from one of sources. It should be better now.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Llewee: Keeping the sections of "Selection as heir" and especially "Regency" out of the "Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" section may seem a bit illogical as he had a regent while being the Duke, so should it not technically be inside the Duke section? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a new section in order to create more of a balance between the different sections sizes. I'm reluctant to split up education and regency because they cover heavily overlapping time periods.--Llewee (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee away until next weekend (Old post, please ignore) edit

Hello all, thank you for your comments which have been very helpful. I am about to go away on holiday, I'll carry on working on the article when I get back.--Llewee (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. I came to say that in this edit (conflict?), you lost indenting and replies, wanting to ask you to fix it. Perhaps I can do it, just not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Buidhe edit

Article says that Martha Liebermann was going to be deported to Auschwitz. This is unlikely because elderly German Jews and especially those well connected were almost always deported to Theresienstadt. Martha Liebermann's article seems to have the correct information with a source. Can you fix this? (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, The cited book says it was Auschwitz.--Llewee (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's wrong though, for the reasons discussed above, and especially because the source in Liebermann's article seems to say the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even just googling for "Martha Liebermann" "Auschwitz" I find plenty of sources that say she was about to be deported to Theresienstadt, and no claims that she was going to Auschwitz. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it and added a source from her page.--Llewee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charles_Edward,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha/archive1&oldid=1218977612"