Talk:Klemens von Metternich

message: where did You got the "Nepomuk"? Ilja Lorek 18:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First message 

message: There's not even one source listed for all this stuff... that's a problem. Nrbelex (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources??? 

message: The article should mention Metternich's primary political principles.  He accepted deception as a legitimate tool of state.  He acted pragmatically rather than on moral or ethical principles. And he practiced engaging other nation diplomatically, playing one off against the other for the purpose achieving a balance of power.  Kissinger's studies of Metternich brought these principles into modern usage and shaped recent history. 70.162.78.92 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lasting Principles 

message: If anything makes an article lose its credibility in the eyes of a critical reader, it is the inability to place an apostrophe in the right place. OK, we can all make mistakes, and maybe this is a just a minor mistyping. Or perhaps the author just does not understand how apostrophes work ... and if that is the case, what else does he not understand? The word "committee's" in the last paragraph on Post-Napoleonic Europe is a plural ... no apostrophe needed (Harry Goldsmith)
:Apostrophe placement is actually a rather poor measure of credibility, and many useful essays are written by authors whose editors save them from this sort of obvious mispunctuation. That said, it is probably less work for you to fix these minor solecisms than to write at length about their implications....<g> - Nunh-huh 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility 

message: Tried editing the first section (and have removed text like 'your gay') but it is very stilted as if translated. Needs a total rewrite by someone who knows the period. 
rsloch 00:55, 10 June 2006 (GMT)
Should have been 'you're gay', right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J27325 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A poor translation? 

message: Link 1 (http://www.h-net.org/~habsweb/sourcetexts/censor.htm) does not work.
:I have just tried it, and it does work. Check your browser's config.Chimba 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link not working 

message: I have just done some editing and formatting. I have also indicated the many parts where it needs sources, although there are a few common-knowledge things I have let pass.
This one needs major work, and is essential as a link between post Napoleonic Europe and WWI. 
I'll try to do some work, but I have yet to find sources.Chimba 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs major work 

message: Congratulations on making the article completely unreadable by adding fact tags to every sentence. --76.188.161.254 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way to go, pedants. 

message: In the intro, what is "entrepaneuer?" Is this a misspelling of "entrepreneur?" If so, I can't understand what is meant by the sentence, "He was the archetypal entrepaneuer [sic] practitioner of 19th-century diplomatic realism, being deeply rooted in the postulates of the balance of power."--68.46.187.78 (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words 

message: Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich is a horrible title.  We should never put different languages together like that ("Prince von").  The old title Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, was basically fine, even if it didn't clarify that he was Fürst rather than merely Prinz.  Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich would be horrible as well.  Or we could just do Klemens Wenzel von Metternich (which is more or less what we do with Otto von Bismarck).  At any rate the English "Prince" and the German "von" used in the same phrase is just awful. john k (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree with the above user. While I don't think "Prince of Metternich" is horrible, I would rather no title be used if it's going to be "von Metternich". Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich or Klemens Wenzel von Metternich. The same with his son, etc. Seven Letters 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support. I think he may be most usually referred to as just "Metternich", but the proposal is an improvement over the current title—as said some sections up, "Prince von" isn't especially elegant. The parallel with Bismarck is a good one. Ucucha 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hey all. I just thought I'd make a note that this article is one of my WP:Wikicup targets for this year. I have, in my possession, a biography of Metternich by Alan Plamer, which I am first going to go through meticulously to expand the article to a decent length. The next stage will be to layer another other books I can get hold of. After that, I will finish off with what I can glean from Google-Books sources, before putting it through a GA.
That much is certain. In later rounds, when I have more time, it would also be nice to get the article to featured status. But that's a little way off. In the meantime and beyond, any help with the article - if only copyediting and flagging up dubious/misleading sentences - would be much appreciated. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so glad you're working on this. I came here to look for information about Metternich's marriages, and there isn't even a mention of his first wife dying, and the other marriages. - Eileen R 161.184.107.221 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! This article was in terrible shape when I first read it, and now is reading like something of a respectable biography. Junggai (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still some way to go, but we're certainly getting there! - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for the article 

message: Hi
During the copyedit a few thing came to light that may need attention:
;Aachen, Teplice, Karlsbad, Troppau and Laibach
*"prompted Eleonore and the children to move to Francis shortly after" (para3) - To Francis or to France?
;General
*Large amounts of "however" used throughout the text. Perhaps use other wording?
*The lead is too short for such a large article - three or four paragraphs are appropriate.
A very good article, well written and informative. It is a little heavy going, perhaps some of the paragraphs could be split into smaller ones?
I would definitely consider putting it up for a GA nomination, if not FA? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit May 2011 

message: It seems that this article is a vessel for proponents of liberal ideas to attack conservative ideas. Don't we have enough of those on Wikipedia already? --24.185.64.42 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can you expand more to include some examples of why you are saying this? Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: The lead contains this sentence:
"His decision to oppose Russian imperialism is also seen as a good one."
By whom? For what reasons?
I think this sentence needs to be removed but would like to solicit opinion on it. 
The next sentence - "His detractors describe him as a bore who stuck to ill-thought out conservative principles only out of vanity and a sense of infallibility." - is hardly any better, sounding like an editorial. Any thoughts on it? Bazuz (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence in lead 

message: serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire, 
hmm...I would say that the Holy Roman Empire did not have Foreign Ministers, and that the Austrian Empire was not its successor state. The Empire of Austria - like the Kingdom of Prussia, the Kingdom of Hanover, the Kingdom of Saxony, the Kingdom of Bavaria, etc.  - was just one of the several successor states of the Holy Roman Empire. It was not its successor state.
--Lubiesque (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Minister and successor state? 

message: The word "german" could be misunderstood here. He was not politician in or of Germany, he was politician in the Holy Roman Empire and in the Empire of Austria. Since "german" was even linked to the article of nowadays federal republic of germany, I deleted the link and the whole word - it could be misunderstood. he was a politician who worked for the house of habsburg: so he worked for austria and during the time, the habsburgs were roman emperors he worked for them in the Holy Roman Emperor. This has nothing to do with nowadays germany. I think "was a politician and statesman of Rhenish extraction and one of the most important diplomats of his era, serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire," is a good and more correct sentnce.
Eromae (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany did NOT exist before 1870. There was a region called Germany prior to that, and it included Austria. He spoke German not Hapsburg, and thus he was a German statesman.Ericl (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I think you'll find that Germans as a people existed prior to the formation of a political state called Germany. Though the Holy Roman Empire's full name was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Zacwill (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: German politician

message: Since he died in 1859, there must be several photos of him somewhere.Ericl (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo please

message: There is presently only a single citation in a lengthy and detailed lead (this for his dates of birth/death).  Probably much of this is sourced in the main text—for the determined reader. It seems awfully light to have basically no direct citations in the lead itself.  — MaxEnt 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations in lead 

message: This page kind of quickly skims over Metternich's reaction to his death. I bring this up because I was personally curious about it, and found a brief mention in Metternich by Sandeman (pg 185):
"Early in the autumn of 1822 Castlereagh committed suicide, so that all hope of his attendance at the coming Congress was ended. Metternich was much distressed. Castlereagh had in many ways agreed with his views and had often proved a good ally, especially in regard to the Eastern Question. 'He had learnt to understand me,' wrote Metternich, 'it will be years before another reaches the same stage of confidence.'"
I think it might be worth including maybe one line of text that it was personally distressing to him. Delukiel (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction to Castlereagh's suicide