Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 August 2020 [1].

---

Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany

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

Moved to Talk:Windsors' visit to Nazi Germany

• 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)

If the FAC coords are wondering why Hasteur—who has had an account since 2007, and yet has never reviewed a FAC before (or, for that matter, commented at WT:FAC)—has suddenly decided to pop up and oppose now, I draw your attention to the fact that the last interaction between us resulted in some embarassment for Hasteur. I had accepted a nomination at AfC, which he disapproved of (" I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space") and promptly nominated it for deletion. The community did not agree. It was closed (speedily) by an administrator, who stated that sanctions for disruption will be imposed if you make more nominations that are so grossly erroneous.

TL;DR: the word retaliatory springs to mind. ——Serial ^# 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for Assuming bad Faith SN54129... I am a editor in good standing and not under any sanctions. I read the Administrators Noticeboard. Are you trying to imply that editors who don't have experience in a specific area of wikipedia are prohibited from participaiting in direct contravention of what you claimed/said/wrote in the other case. TLDR: Nice ABF you have there. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh-uh. TL;DR: you would not have cared otherwise. Your oppose does not help the project (or indeed you "good standing"), whereas closing and implementing the talk page discussion would have. That you chose the one coures and not the other speaks volumes. ——Serial ^# 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, Hasteur, it is as you say irrelevant how you got here, and my remarks were perhaps a little over the top and certainly over-personalized. Thanks for looking in, it's the more the merrier here usually. And usually much quieter... ——Serial ^# 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I accept your apology. I was simply expressing my view in light of WP:FACR (paraphrased) A Featured article is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The "abnormal" Request for closure piqued my interest. I didn't consider who was involved, simply looking at the topic and reading the "thesis" of the related Request raised enough concern for me that I did not consider the proposed featured article stable yet. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Hasteur. Any thoughts on this? The appeal to AN had the (eventual) result of moving the page back to its non-contentious original title, which, as it has now been arrived at by community consensus (rather than just my choice) would make impossible for any further move even should anyone want it. All the best, ——Serial ^# 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The article title appears to be stable. I think (possibly as part of the promotion to FA) that in light of the previous moves in addition to the charged nature of the page, we might want a preventative Move-Protect. Just spitballing, ideas to improve the article/wikipedia. My previous oppose is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Note for Coords and Bot ... I am making all the adjustments for the name change so the bot won't be foiled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 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.[16]" 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".[24][25]" 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.[36]"

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 stated[15]nIn 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.[15]

— 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;[51]" "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.[33] " 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,[49][note 14] 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[23]" 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;[50]" 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.[29]" 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.[50]" 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;[29] the Duke reciprocated in kind, a number of times and which made him appear sympathetic to their views.[32] " 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:[31]" 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)

Thanks. Holding off on a re-read until the opposers are happy or until you ping me again, since I imagine there will be changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Support I've made a number of minor changes. I would still suggest the following:

• Consider moving the mention of Chamberlain up in the text, perhaps to where you mention Number Ten. He still seems an afterthought and the reader would be excused if they thought Baldwin was still PM.
• You might mention that former Labour Party leader George Lansbury was among those who visited Hitler.
• An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those extra thoughts, Wehwalt, they're useful. Lansbury especially, as it shows it wasn't just the nobs that went over  :) and Chamberlain, well I forgot to point out that he became PM in May that year, so frankly Baldwin had nothing to do with it. Which makes it close on to being clarification of teh century! All the best, ——Serial ^# 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support 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)

Hi Serial. I'll try continue this review soon. I was in part holding off until HJMitchell's issue was resolved, and I see now it has been. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moisejp, apprecaite your coming back. I've addressed your suggestions—hopefully—often by the simple means of stealing your suggestions  :) cheers, ——Serial ^# 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Lead: "disrupt the first year of George's reign": First mention of George, I think. Does he need more of an introduction? Moisejp (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Good idea: I've added a sentence introducing him as King at the beginnig, which allows him to be called George now.

• Royal and governmmental view: "The royal biographer Sarah Bradford suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring." Is "not only" correct here, or perhaps it's a leftover from a previous "not only...but also" construction? By itself it feels incomplete. Moisejp (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, and also caught by Harry Mitchell below.

• "The Duke had a ("genuine", says Middlemas) sympathy[46] for the cause of improving working conditions." I'm torn but feel overall the extra value of "genuine" here may not be great enough to offset the extra resulting wordiness. How would the following be: "The Duke was sympathetic to the cause of improving working conditions: a few months earlier, for example, he had declared—in what the historian Michael Bloch calls a "celebrated remark"—that "something must be done" about unemployment." Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit random, so have removed and tweaked per your suggestion.

• 11–23 October 1937: "Ley and a welcoming delegation—which, although a private visit of a guest of the GLF, included von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer—met them on the platform." This sentence also feels slightly wordy to me, and I wonder whether the inclusion of "although a private visit of a guest of the GLF" adds enough to warrant the extra twists and turns. If it could be removed, then the sentence could be greatly simplified to something like "Ley and a welcoming delegation including von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer, met them on the platform." Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Adopted your suggestion, cheers.

• "Also waiting was Ogilvie-Forbes, who presented them with a letter informing them of the inability of the Embassy to provide them with services." / "This contrasted with their treatment by the UK resident in Berlin, Ogilvie-Forbes, notes Bloch. Forbes had been instructed not to receive the royal couple, give them rooms or in any other way assist them." These details feel possibly repetitive since they are in such close proximity with each other. If there's a way to merge them together, that could be nice, but if there's not, maybe it's okay.

No, you're right: I've merged the second mention into the first and moved the footnote up.

Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Horcher's, the finest gourmet restaurant in the city". Could be subjective? Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was :) but yeah, completely unencyclopedic, so removed.

Any thoughts Moisejp? There's no rush of course, but just a reminder that we're still going strong here  :) ——Serial ^# 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to jump back in soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Footnote 10 (minor comment): I'm not sure what "In the event," is supposed to mean here, and whether it may be a turn of phrase I'm not familiar with. Could it be reworded? Moisejp (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing's too minor, Moisejp. Thanks for that—yes, it was a bit colloquial I agree, so have removed it. Apologies if I was rushing you! Please, take all the time you want. ——Serial ^# 09:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work on the article. I'm ready to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've given to review this, Moisejp, and am very grateful. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 12:07, 21 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 Wikipedia's voice. The last needs better attribution than "modern historians". As for the rest, it's not for Wikipedia 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)

Personally I think @HJ Mitchell:'s oppose was valid at the time, but since then the lead has been greatly improved. Thanks Harry for highlighting. I just gave a once over; my changes were mostly small stuff. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is much better now and I've struck my oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To follow up, one remaining thing; "had tea with Hitler" seems like trite - it was a formal and highly politicised occasion. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Windsors' political views A little work is needed here for clarity. You refer to him as "Windsor" and "the Duke" but the section starts with events before the abdication and the new title.

Difficult...the "Background" section establishes his changes of name/title. Having said that, a tweak in the order and calling him PoW might do it?

• in her autobiography she refuted the suggestion is "refute" definitely the verb you want there?

"Denied" is better. Ironically, with what's to come, it's seems out of lace here and seems better forwarded to a footnote.

• suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring. Looks like you've left something dangling from a previous edit?

Indeed, as also caught by Moisejp  :)

• Note 10 contains a massive run-on sentence that's very difficult to parse.

Split in two and generally shortened.

• You use the verb "argue" a lot (20 times in 4,500 words), often with the same sentence structure ("historian John Smith argues")

Reduced down to two usages. What's your opinion on false titles? This accounts for my (monotonous) sentence structuring when it comes to quotes, opinions etc.

• Ley replied "'it is where they store the cold meat.' In a horrible sense that was true", I think you're missing an opening or closing quote mark between the quotes, and I'm not sure the second half adds any value.

It's one quote (double quote marks) with a quote inside (single quotes)?

• What does note 25 have to do with the visit? Ditto 26, 28, 33, 34 (the first sentence of which could maybe go in the body), 35, and 37.
• Austria was shown as annexed to Germany Is this really relevant?

Personally, I'd say pretty emphatically, yes. Mainly because it's one of the few times we actually have an indication the sort of encounters they were having: he met all these important people—von R., Speer, Goebels, Hitler etc., but we rarely get a hint of what they discussed. But with Goering, funny story from Simpson.

For what it's worth, I could probably have mined other similar anecdotes from their autobiographies, but wanted to avoid using them as much as possible. Whereas this anecdote, although from the Duchess, comes straight from a RS.

• Note 27: I would mention in the body that the salute was not unusual and scrap the stuff about football as off-topic.
• Suggest unlinking "risqué jokes", "sight-seeing", "interpreter" (which is not linked on first mention), "summit", "forcibly taken over", and looking for other similar links further up.

Done.

• Liebensraum is linked twice.

Thanks, thought I'd caught em.

• Note 29 should be shortened and incorporated into the body.
• Note 30: The duke's 1966 comments could go in the aftermath section; the rest is off-topic for the visit.
• Note 31 should be incorporated into the body. The duke's version of what was discussed is directly relevant.

All things being equal, I totally agreed with this, and have done so!

• Historiography: This gets a bit choppy with too many sentences along the lines of "historian Smith [verb] suggests..."

Tricky...it's a load of people giving their opinions, which has to be directy attributed inline. Also, re. sentence structure, see my comment above wrt false titles...

• Do we need three relatively short block quotes in Historiography?

Not if you say so. I was going by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE which suggests quotes of 40 words or more might be blocked off, but admittedly they were all pretty close to the edge (and indeed, in one case was a bout two short!)

• Churchill, for example, wrote to the Duke, then in Paris, Is the duke's location relevant?

No, gone.

• Does the NYT quote in "later events" really need a block quote?

See above for reasoning, but I've trimmed it so it's now moot and inline.

• 37 explanatory footnotes in 4500 words is far too many, and a lot of these are very close together (some a sentence or two apart; in one instance you have two literally next to each other). Many could be culled (starting with the ones I raised above); those that are directly relevant to the visit should be incorporated into the body.

I'll be addressing this, obviously.

• "However" used to be frowned upon at FAC and should be used with caution. You have eight instances in this article, most of which I suspect could be culled.

True; reduced to two, if I can count right.

• The writing can be a little verbose and there are places where it could be tightened. A thorough copy edit for concision could probably cull a couple of hundred words without any loss of meaning. Some quotes could probably be culled; obviously historians' opinions are important, but some could be rephrased into your own words to help with the flow (eg, "genial mood" probably doesn't need in-text attribution). I'd suggest varying your introduction to quotes as well; they almost all follow the format of This was not, comments Morton, and but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach,.

I've reduced the number of quotes—particularly the short ones which can be rephrased—substantially. See above, again, re. false titles for the reasoning for the quotes' lead ins. Happy to be advised on other methods though obviously.

Very well-researched and put together, but more work is needed on the prose, I feel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough review, HJ Mitchell, appreciated. I've addressed most of your points, nearly always incorporating them, although, as I say, those that relate to footnotes require careful consideration. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick reply. I don't have a strong opinion on false titles. I tend to use them where the concision doesn't cause ambiguity but there are ways of avoiding them while still varying the sentence structure. If you've culled a dozen footnotes without any great loss I suspect more could go; war memorials don't really lend themselves to footnotes but if you look at some of my history articles (eg British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War and my current project, Death of James Ashley) you'll see that I do make use of them, but for side details that would clutter up the prose. I'll have a look at the prose etc and the point-by-point on the footnotes in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Twelve footnotes, HJM—calm down, calm down  :) anyway, I look forward, with pleasure, to implementing any actionable or quantifiable suggestions you might present. All the best, ——Serial ^# 14:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes

The elephant in the room, eh. The good news first: I've removed eight footnotes and cut 3,316 bytes from them, so what remains should be leaner and tighter.

Conversely, it seems that we have different—perhaps fundamental—philosophical approaches to the role and purpose of footnotes; maybe we write articles on very distant topics. Illustrating the difference in our respective approaches—the difference, not right or wrongness—I had a look at both our last ten FACs: over the course of yours, you have used four footnotes. Mine? About 210. That's multiple reviews in which multiple reviewers accept—if not agree—the use footnotes play in contextualising. I'll go to each one in this article shortly, but briefly, a footnote is useful for illustrating the relevance of the cited material without distracting the flow of the prose. For example, individuals (important ones only, of course): who are they and what have they done to be part of the story? Places: why (if at all) is something happening in a certain place relevant? Dates: does something integral to the story continues in its own, less relevant but yet related path? Most importantly, to provide context that presents alternative, relevant, interpretations which again would be distracting in the main body; to attempt to answer/fulfil obvious questions that may be thrown up to the reader—even Randy!—in the course of the narrative; and to clarify, and possibly resolve contradictions in the sources.

This is especially important in an article like this, in which it is impossible to avoid the overarching hypothesis of the duke and duchess' Nazi sympathies, but in which, when put in context, it becomes apparent that they were very much not alone. And this isn't an academic or ancient argument: he's still remembered for it today. These footnotes, by putting the event in the context of the time, are ensuring a difficult to achieve neutrality and one which would be harmed, I think, by their removal. Having said that, the extent to which I've trimmed them hopefully indicates the depth of consideration I've gave your suggestions, and in many cases, I went with them. But I'm afraid I couldn't accept—at face value—a stand-alone statement that x-amount of footnotes in a y-sized article is too much; all things being equal, everything should be considered on its merits.

Anyway, that's my stall HJ Mitchell, and I hope it isn't an offensive one to you. ——Serial ^# 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• As of revision [2], analysis of footnotes:

1. Replies to the question: who had she married?
2. The source in the text says he was acting against his Cor. oath: this points out that, actually, he never took one, so the reader is left to draw their own conclusions (presumably, off the record, that Cadbury is referring to the spirit rather than the letter of the oath).
3. This in response to an above reviewer: for NPOV purposes, it emphasises that "Germanic sympathies" shouldn't be misinterpreted, as the family was still very German, culturally.
4. Important to point out that these allegations are clearly fictive, but it would be out of place to say so in the lead.
5. Answers the question, well when did she get a state tour?
6. Contextualises King G's being "horrified", Europe being on an edge etc.
7. Clarifies that there is an alternative interpretation of his intentions.
8. Answers the question, how did his friends try and help?
9. Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.
10. Explains who Bedaux was and why he is important to the story.
11. Ditto, Weideman, and that he had a previous, if second-hand, link to the duke.
12. Contextualises a conspiracy theory; viz. that the author is popular but unreliable professionally.
13. Notes a pre-existent# link between Ley and Bedaux for the reader to consider.
14. Explains why Hitler believed what he did.
15. Answers the (rather obvious!) question, if he was called Edward why did his cousin call him David?
16. Explains, briefly, why he was royal but she was not.
17. Direct quote from a primary source illustrating the govt's position in detail, which would be too much for the text to bear.
18. I'm finding it difficult to see, personally, how the opinion of Hitler's chief propagandist on the article's major protagonist is not relevant!
19. Demonstrates the links between Windsor, his brother and their cousins. Again contextualises his thoughts as part of a broader canvas.
20. Explains background.
21. Expands upon Ley and provides context for historians—and the duchess'—opinions.
22. As I suggested above, it would be out of place in the article to point out that, actually, what G. said came to pass very shortly.
23. Again, this was suggested by another reviewer, pointing out that, actually, Hitler's Nazi salutes were not as unusual as we might think today. Everyone, including lowly beings as football players, did it. Essential NPoV context.
24. You suggested moving this into the body: not a bad point, although the line about him spending most of his time there helps explain why they met him there rather than Berlin, say, which after all, was the centre of their tour.
25. Contextualises Halifax's trip.
26. Again, for NPOV reasons, contextualising the duke's opinions on the communist threat by noting how common it was within the British establishment.
27. Background on why Bedaux—and, therefore, Windsor by association—was disliked in the states.
28. Alternative interpretation, unnecessary in the body, for the US government's view.
29. I don't think explaining why an island in the middle of nowhere was on the duchess' mind is unhelpful to the reader...

Did some more cutting along the way, as it goes, as having formulated my reasoning beforehand (above) focussed and my approach. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• 4 should probably be shortened and moved into the body.

Moved the Ribbentrop reference into the body; notes on the sourcing should be separated unless issues with the sourcing are under discussion.

• 5 doesn't seem relevant to this visit, though you could move it into the aftermath section if you felt it was important.

Moved.

• 6 should be shortened to a few words and moved next to the sentence it supports. The reader doesn't need chapter and verse on why it was a delicate time; if they're unfamiliar with immediately pre-WWII European politics, you've given them a link to an article with more detail.

You'll enjoy this: I've got rid, as it effectively repeats material already in the background.

• 7 should go; he wasn't being "of service to His Majesty" on this trip so it's of limited relevance.

Yeah why not.

• 8 should either go or move into the body; it's not a major detail

Moved.

• 9, although interesting and expanding on a point made in the body, has nothing to do with the visit and so is out of scope for this article

I still believe it Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.

• 10 should be shortened and moved to the body because you mention Bedaux's businesses in the aftermath section (and the "second and final" confiscation would be confusing to a reader who hadn't been reading the footnotes as they went.

Done.

• 11: the explanation of his connection to the duke is a good use for a footnote but is the (alleged) espionage directly relevant?

Well, it was intended to show that he was a professional spy, rather than just on this one occasion. But, fair enough: removed.

• 12: The first sentence is fine but could easily be removed or added into the body. The rest is off-topic and I'm not sure an encyclopaedia should be discussing such outlandish claims (if the duchess was still living, a claim like that would be oversighted). Also, MI6 wasn't known by that name until later; I'd stick with something like "British intelligence" because I'm not sure it had a common name at the time.

Suggestions actioned. Re OS: it was a—pretty effective!—illustration of precisely why Higham is considered unreliable: but I agree it's unnecessarily lurid and tabloidy.

• 18, 19, and 20 are fine as footnotes but they're very close together. Is there any way they could be combined or one of them cut or incorporated into the body?

Moved 18 into body. Merged 19&20; also shortened the resultant note considerably.

• 21 is about Ley but has nothing to do with the visit. The reader's understanding of the visit would not be harmed by its absence.

H'mmm.

• 22 I don't think is on-topic but I'd agree to disagree.
• 23: I still think the football stuff is off-topic. That the salute was not unusual can be mentioned in the body.

OK, removed the football stuff  :)

• 25: I see what you're getting at by providing context but this is almost background to the background. If Schwoerer's opinion reflects the consensus I would just add it, unattributed, to the body. If it's an outlier, it should go.

Moved to the body. It doesn't sound a particularly wild claim—unofficial official meetings have rather a long tradition, particularly in diplomacy.

That's potentially another dozen or so footnotes that could go, which would bring the total down to about 17. Even that is more than I would have used had I been writing this article, but it's less overwhelming and keeps the article on-topic (criterion 4 of WP:FA?). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HJ Mitchell, all useful suggestions and generally actioned. I think your suggested compromises—moving material into the article body—is a useful one that I'll certainly bear in mind for the future. I still believe them to be an essential weapon in the struggle for criterion 1b—neglect[ing] no major facts or details and plac[ing] the subject in context. ——Serial ^# 14:12, 19 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",[25] 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)

• Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for not getting on to the images sooner, Nikkimaria, I had my hands ful somewhat :) Right. Here we go.

1. File:Duke and Duchess of Windsor meet Adolf Hitler 1937.jpg: stronger FUR applied ([3]), but not sure what other fair use tags there are?

1. The "unique historic image" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the event depicted, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. You could replace it with a generic {{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1. [NEW] File:Vincenzo Laviosa - Duke and Duchess of Windsor - Google Art Project.jpg: PD CoO/US.

1. When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Created "About 1934"; no word on publishing date (if there is one, of course). If that takes this out of the running, this one seems to have been released under a CC licence?

Would need a more specific copyright tag on this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I swapped it out for the Yugoslav one? ——Serial ^# 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes - this one has a Flickr tag which states "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined". Can such information be determined? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1. [NEW] File:Stanley Baldwin ggbain.35233.jpg: PD-US
2. [NEW] File:Oscar Nathaniel Solbert.jpg: Tricky one. Research indicates that the original was made under the auspices of Bassano Ltd. They merged with Elliott and Fry in 1965. According to the NPR, The National Portrait Gallery owns all the surviving negatives (But then, I guess they would say that, wouldn't they?). A further cause for concern is that it was uploaded by a serial copyright violator on en.wp, Elisa.rolle, who has been blocked several times as a result. That makes me extremely wary of accepting anything at face value. Frankly, unless you think that what I've done adheres sufficiently to the {{PD-UK-unknown}} research requirement, I'd willingly pull it.

Done.

1. Think this ought to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Swapped for File:Charles Bedaux.png.

The uploader of the source image for that one has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns...

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

:D Right, nominated t for deletion too. Have removed but not replaced.

1. File:Duc et duchesse de Windsor avec Hitler (1937).jpg: PD in France; is there anything we can do to use this?

1. When did it enter the public domain in France? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

14 November 1937?

It was published on that date - I'm asking when the copyright expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooops, 2012.

Okay, so the five-point test would suggest that it's still under copyright in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1. File:Neville Chamberlain.jpg: Chamberlain seems to have no free images at all, almost. Bizarre. can I use this, would you say?

1. Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate any advice you could give Nikkimaria, and apologies, again, for keeping you waiting. ——Serial ^# 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this Nikkimaria, I've made a few changes. ——Serial ^# 15:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And again, NM...sorry about the repeated pings. Slow but sure wins the race! (Hopefully) ——Serial ^# 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much! ——Serial ^# 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: For some reason I thought I'd resolved this, but now I look at it I think not. Could we approach it a different way—you tell me which images are incorrectly licenced, and I'll remove them. Much simpler  :) ——Serial ^# 16:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg. File:King_Edward_VIII_and_Mrs_Simpson_on_holiday_in_Yugoslavia,_1936.jpg should have a more specific tag. File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg is not incorrectly licensed but the FUR needs work - what's currently in the purpose of use parameter would be better suited to the replaceable parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks @Nikkimaria. Got rid of those first two: neither were under a CC license that I could find, indeed the latter is under some wierd "The Commmons" thing (slightly misleading title!) in which they palm-off "no known c/r restrictions" as a thing. The last one, I've adjusted the FUR as you suggest. What think ye? (Possibly the last time I have to ping you...) ——Serial ^# 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I suggest using full face portraits of both of them.

Excellent idea, should've thought of that. I've used this one of them together from just a couple of years earlier.

• "Having abdicated the British throne in December 1936, his brother Albert has taken the throne as King George VI." This sounds clumsy. Maybe "He abdicated the British throne in December 1936, and his brother Albert became king as King George VI."

Used that, thanks!

• "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of the Duke's lack of judgement and good counsel, rather than sympathy with the Nazi regime." But he was getting good counsel from the govt and allies such as Churchill and Beaverbrook, and he chose not to listen to them. In the historiography section you quote one historian acquitting him of Nazi sympthies and one condemning him for them. This does not seem like a consensus.

I deliberately avoided suggesting there was a consensus, I hope (note, tend to...), but it's a fair point about counsel: I've gone for "...tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received"?

• "Even had Simpson converted to Anglicanism, both her previous husbands were still alive." This seems like a non-sequitur, as you have not said that her religion was an issue, or what it was.

Fair point; I can't even remember why it's important if indeed it is. So removed it and recast the sentence.

• "Windsor's great-grandmother was the daughter of a German princess". His great-grandfather was German.

That's absolutely true of course, and I admit my original sentence might have looked a little forced: but that was because the source wrt the family's Germanity was Propopoulos, and he only mentions Victoria. But, via a different source, I've added Albert (which pf course conveniently emphasises their German-roots even more!)

• You are inconsistent whether to capitalise "king". I think it is correct to capitalise when it is short for George VI, but not in "believing that, as King, Windsor would have strengthened Anglo-German relations".

Check.

• "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that "in his farewell broadcast Edward had said: 'I now quit altogether public affairs', but almost in the next sentence: 'If at any time in the future I can be found of service to His Majesty in a private station, I shall not fail.'" I am not clear what point you are making here. He said that he would always serve his majesty but then undertook the tour against George's opposition, so why the "however"?

There was a reason, I think there had been a later "although" which has since been lost. Anyway, well caught: removed.

• "However well-intentioned, says Bloch". You should give his full name and link on first mention.

Done.

• "Bedaux has been described by Bloch as an "enigmatic time and motion tycoon".[15] John Vincent suggests that Bedaux planned" Why the past tense in the first case and present in the second?

Yes, thanks; I intended all modern opinion to be in the present and those of contemporaries in the past. Have adjusted a few more occurrences (also answering your point below, there!).

• "This led him to suggest that the Duke should "head up and consolidate the many and varied peace movements throughout the world"." Suggested to who?

Clarified it was to the duke.

• "although says that at that stage, ot was still only" Typo for "it"?

Absolutely, cheers.

• "The author Hugo Vickers has suggested that Edward" In this and other cases you are inconsistent whether to use past or present case when quoting historians. I also do not see how it helps the reader to describe someone as an author - everyone you quote must be an author!

See above for tense. True re. author; have changed to biographer and journalist.

• "However well-intentioned, says Bloch" Does Bloch think that the tour was well intentioned? Is that the opinion of other historians?

No, not really; he implies that it was done for the best of reasons (i.e. the working class, etc), but I admit it's a bit of a reach to draw any personal intentions from that.

• "Deborah Cadbury suggests that it was at a 1936 dinner that Hitler may have first learned of King Edward VIII's sympathies." In the lead you say that he did not have Nazi sympathies. Do not comments like this belong in historiography rather than only quoting historians who acquit him?

I'm tempted: although it seems slightly too detailed for a general overview of his politics to mention a specific occasion. I've adjusted the lead to mention his pro-German sympathies, but I think it's important to emphasise that being pro-German (which he was: while on the tour, he regularly, reports one RS, "slipped into his mother tongue, German", for example) did not necessarily equate to being pro-Nazi (which is really unknown, although I suspect that, if there is any kind of historiographical consensus, it's that he was the former rather than the latter (notwithstanding that, like others, his fear of communism outweighed his dislike of Hitler)). If you think the Histogy section is too slanted towards "letting him off the hook", then I can probably find some more negatively-inclined press (I added Russian reactions to the "Reactions" section, and were pretty clear in their belief that his entire bloody family were Nazis!!)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking in here, Dudley Miles: I've implemented most of your suggestions (although apologies for my ?turgid? replies!) ——Serial ^# 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129 as other reviewers are active at present, I will hold off in order to avoid duplicating their comments. Perhaps you could ping me when these other reviewers have finished. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: well, things seem to have calmed down: Harry hasn't edited for a couple of days, but hopefully will look back in. Thanks for what you've done so far, in any case. ——Serial ^# 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the period, but I am concerned at the very different view of Edward's attitudes in this article compared with the FA article on him and the DNB one. You say "The Duke had been sympathetic to Germany since he was a youth, on account of his family's German origins" and quote an "RS" above (but not in the article) as saying his mother tongue was German. This is not correct. The other articles say he was taught German and French by a tutor and say nothing about his German origin or being pro-German. The DNB article says that he was desperate for a foreign tour, supported a negotiated peace with Germany and refers to his "non-political naïvety". I think you at least make clear that the idea that he was influenced by his origin to be pro-German is one view, not an undisputed fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

H'mmm. I read our FA, DM, and, notwithstanding that WP:OSE, I'm not surprised they differ. Frankly, I'm glad they do. That passed FAC over a decade ago—when this passed as one—it's full of unsourced material, and is pretty lightweight in its coverage of his early years. So it's not surprisng, I venture, that this article focusses on his "Germanness" more than that: here, it is integral to the context of the article, whereas there it is one of just many personality traits.

Having said that, I agree that we can't be sure, with historical hindsight, what his personal views were, especially as a "youth", and that since his own "Germanness"—such as it may have been—is only touched on in a footnote in the body, while his German tutor, etc., is mentioned inline. That makes mention of his supposed-Germanness undue in the lead, so i've tweaked it to say merely he was sympathetic in this period. What think you, Dudley Miles? ——Serial ^# 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just noticed another issue, which is that the article cites books without page numbers. The issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... I do not see how citations of electronic books without page numbers can be acceptable as it is impossible for readers to check them, even if they have access to the source. Ealdgyth have you come across this issue in your source reviews? What is your view? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Messed up ping to Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That would've come up in the source review anyway Dudley Miles. I looked for a policy on it, with no joy. Unfortunately, that discussion doesn't seem to have established a firm consensus; and while page numbers for a printed book are essential per WP:V., an electronic source can be accessed via the ctrl + f function I guess. ——Serial ^# 18:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers. Using ctrl+f assumes that 1. the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. 2. that you have used the same words in the article as in the book 2. that the words are uncommon enough that they do not give many hits. Trying again to ping Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Butting in re e-books; I normally use the chapter title; I think that's about as close you can get, and seems absolutely fine. E books do not have page numbers, but are still absolutely RS under the normal conditions. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That is fine with books which have short chapters, but some have chapters with 30+ pages. Looking at online discussions, there are students with e-books complaining that when lecturers ask them to comment on pages in a book, they cannot find what they are supposed to be writing about. E-books are OK for reading, but they are not suitable for referring readers to specific comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of references is to verify the claims in an article. If the particular format makes it tedious to do this, then that hardly makes the material used any less valuable. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to experiment with the |loc= parameter, which seems the closest we currently have for addressing this issue. I urge the FAC community to grasp the mettle on this and codify a guideline to operate under. Until that happens—with all respect to everyone here—whatever we (I) do now will be what someone likes / doesn't like, which will satisfy few and annoy most... ——Serial ^# 10:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, {{Cite ebook}} has obviously been considered for service in the past, although it's only ever redirected to {{Cite book}}. Time to change that perhaps. ——Serial ^# 10:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: With regard to "WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers", it should be clarified that WP:V actually makes no such requirement; the relevant section specifically allows for non-paginated in-source locations: Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). ——Serial ^# 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: who might also find this useful  :) ——Serial ^# 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

True, I did not read it carefully enough. However, the reference to "sections" covers divisions of web pages. It does not appear to cover ebooks, which do not comply with the requirement to cite sources "precisely", even if chapters are specified, except in books with very short chapters. Many books have chapters with over 30 pages, and some are very long. Michael Lapidge's Anglo-Saxon Literature 900-1066 has a chapter of 52 pages, Simon Keynes in Kings, Currency and Alliances has one of 47 pages and Alfred Smyth's King Alfred the Great has one of 72 pages. In such cases, chapters are not "such divisions as may be appropriate", and are no better than uncited statements for readers with paper copies of books. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: If you're suggesting an RfC, I'd fully support clarifying the FAC (and, for that matter, GA and PR too since it affects them) approach to e-sources. ——Serial ^# 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(taking off coord hat here, just as a plain reviewer) I'd say that the current footnotes to entire ebooks are not enough for verifiablity. Using the loc parameter should be good enough, although whether it works with sfn is an open question. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find loc= in Template:Cite book. What is it for? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See §3.5.6. ——Serial ^# 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah I have worked it out now. In sfn you can use loc=, in cite book it is quote=

Continuing on from my comments above, loc= in sfn or quote= in cite book can be used with a quote to allow another ebook reader to find the correct location of the citation with ctrl-f, but it is no use to someone who has the paper book. Similarly page= is no use to someone who has the ebook. I think we have to face up to the fact that there are now two separate classes of readers, e-book readers and paper book readers, and the citation formats of each class are no use to the other class. I am thinking of starting an RfC proposing that there should be two classes of FA, Standard FA and E-book FA. Ditto for GA. (E-book FAs and GAs could still use citations with pages for books not available as e-books.) This is the only way to prevent disputes over whether sourcing is acceptable. WP:V would need to be revised, as it seems to me to currently rule out citations to e-books. Any comments Serial Number 54129, Ceoil, Ealdgyth? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea Dudley Miles, and as I said above, I'd support anything that clarifies the current—opaque, to say the least!—situation. The brutal fact is that the issue is going to become more frequent as time passes; give it a few years and dead-tree books could be confined to university and deposit libraries, who knows. But certainly, e-books are here to stay, and we have to acknowledge that and find a way of working with them. The current situation—that a reliable source would fail a FAC because of its format is a frankly bizarre one: but I judge you right in your reading of the letter of the law. If you go ahead with an RfC, or know when one runs, I'd appreciate a ping!

Incidentally, I've cited the e-books in this particular candidate as requested, by means of chapter/paragraph. All the best! ——Serial ^# 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: No rush, of course :) but did you have any further views? (On RfCs generally or this article particularly!) ——Serial ^# 12:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Ha. I will quote you Meryl Halls, managing director of the Booksellers’ Association at [4]: "I think the e-book bubble has burst somewhat, sales are flattening off, I think the physical object is very appealing." In addition, it is very unlikely that it will ever be economic to produce e-book versions of the great mass of older books with limited sales.

2. Adding the paragraph number goes a long way to solving the problem, but I think very few people will understand the symbol you use, and accurately counting paragraphs up to 50, or even more with long chapters, will be a pain. How about also using the loc= field to give the first few words of the paragraph to make it easier to tie down the correct one, and also explaining your system in note 1. Readers of real books should then be able to find the correct paragraph without too much difficulty.

3. I do not think it will then be necessary to take the issue as I suggested above to RfC, but if you agree that the system in the previous paragraph solves the problem then it might be worth recommending it at RfC.

4. Re n. 56 Unknown ODNB author 2004. Previous versions were by Philip Ziegler and his name was probably omitted in error. I suggest emailing DNB about it.

5. I am not sure you need any more input from me as you already have 3 supports, but I will look at the article again if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

1. I hope she's right! Still, they'll certainly remain with us, so I wonder how many times we'll (not us personally, but you know) be having this discussion in future  :)

2. Thank you. I've added a explanatory guide to the references. I agree it's backbreaking work to count paragraphs—it took me most of yesterday to do so. You might be right about using the first words in the loc field: I'm not wholly convinced though, mainly as I see an opportunity for confusing, rather than aiding the reader, who would, after all, still have to check the opening words of every paragraph to find the one they were looking for. I might return to the question in the (not so distant) future and undertake the project, but it would be far too disruptive to do so now. Interesting though.

• I did not make myself clear. I think that a paragraph number would be very helpful, but with a large number it would be very easy for the reader to miscount. Having the start of the paragraph as well as the paragraph number would make it easy for the reader to confirm that he/she is at the right place by just checking that the paragraph found by counting starts with the correct words. Quoting the first few words of the paragraph will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs. There would also be a need to allow for cases where the ref is to several paragraphs. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs, although, as you said previously, Using ctrl+f assumes that...the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. Anyway, thanks for looking in, DM, your reviews are appreciated as always; I think we're all done here. Cheers, and stay safe! ——Serial ^# 09:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

3. No, but as I said, I'm sure this is going to keep occurring, particularly in more "popular culture"-orientated nominations, perhaps. (In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't already—I'll look into that, see how it's been addressed in other noms (if it has been, of course)). You might be right, though, an RfC might be OTT if there's already an established procedure.

4. Ah, it's tempting the to assume Zeigler it is then. Annoyingly it's not listed under his contributions, either. Funnily enough, I emailed them when I wrote the thing to ask them—of course, they never replied. It's hard to imagine they are that inundated with messages! I'll give em another go, or a tweet from a twit perhaps  :)

5. Ah! Well, all things being equal, I'd like consensus to be as clear as possible...our coords are overworked as it is  :) would you mind looking it over once again? Pace of course, to our discussion above. Cheers Dudley Miles, all the best to ye. ——Serial ^# 16:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• "The historian Jonathan Petropoulos hypothesises that the British government were aware that they could not prevent what was, officially, a visit by a private individual." "hypothesises" is an odd word here. OED defines it as "To frame a hypothesis or supposition", which seems very theoretical for something the govt must have known.

He suggests, would be better.

• "The scholar Susanna de Vries describes how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal".[89] Cadbury also says the Duchess—dressed in royal blue—appeared regal to their welcoming party." Why "also"? You have not quoted Cadbury before in this context. And you do not need to repeat "the Duchess".

I cut mention of Cadbury and merged/shortened the two sentences.

• "They were greeted by Ley, who kissed her hand and called her "Your Highness"[91][note 15] and presented her with a large box of chocolates." "and...and"

"who kissed her hand, called her "Your Highness" and presented her with a large box of chocolates", better?

• You say what happened outside the station, then what happened on the platform. This seems the wrong way round.

Good point, so moved Ley and his atmosphere to the next section.

• "He was seen, says the journalist Andrew Morton, as Modern, progressive, vigorous, and accessible. Even his mock Cockney accent with a touch of American seemed more down-to-earth and unaffected than the disdainful patrician tones of a man like Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. He remained an intriguing international celebrity, his marital turmoil only enhancing the iconic mystery surrounding the man." This seems to be about the international view, but in the context "He was seen" refers only to the German view.

I've kept the bit about German media liking him here, but moved the comment re. cockneyness, etc., to the background section where it acts more like an overview of the man. Thoughts?

• "heavy program" Presumably this is an Americanisation of the spelling of "Programme" in a British newspaper.

Indeed! And although I wouldn't usually alter a quote, I've taken the liberty of doing so, as elsewhere Boyd (or their editor) has Lloyd George, I think, "saying" "color".

• "Pathé caught the moment they emerged from the station..." This appears to be about their arrival in Germany. Should it not in the correct place in the article?

Yes, moved to the preceding section.

• "historicist". OED define this as a believer in historicism!

Oops, Freudian slip  :) he was a researcher, at least.

• You say that Ogilvie-Forbes met them on the platform, but in the letter you reproduce he says it was at the hotel.

Yes, good point, and one I'm not sure what to do about: the sources say he was at the station (although apart from the German delegation, obviously). I wonder if he attended as a personal favour/out of respect to the duke, and then made an official visit to the hotel?

• "press on with his policy towards the east" This seems euphemistic. How about something like "territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe"?

Yes, done.

• "where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel, where the Duke received" where...where

"where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel; the Duke received a number of personal guests."

• NSDAP. What does this mean?
• "In these aspirations, the Duke was in the company of a large swathe of the British ruling class: apart from Lloyd George and Lord Halifax". "apart from" is ambiguous. Presumably you mean "as well as"?

Yes, bizarrely that reads as if LG and Halifax hadn't visited!

• "Another wrote that" Who?

Unknown correspondent stated.

• "Roosevelt wrote to Windsor expressing hope that the tour would eventually go ahead, but Morton believes this a "conciliatory" gesture from the President." I take it you are saying that Roosevelt was disingenuous? You could be clearer.

Tweaked.

• This is a good article, but I am still concerned about the emphasis on his Germanness. I raised this before and you replied that the WIki article on him is unreliable, but I also cited DNB and you did not reply on this. You say "Windsor was an admirer of Germany. This was as least in part due to his upbringing, suggests King, noting that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native, and the walls of the royal residences of England were lined with portraits of his Hanoverian ancestors"." DNB does not mention a German heritage and says "However, from other teachers David learned French and German (and later he also became a fluent Spanish speaker)." This is an authoratative source, but I cannot find any evidence that King is. I cannot trace any reviews of the book and I have never heard of Kensington Publishing. Do you have evidence that King is a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To avoid being misquoted, and in the interests of precision, I'd like to emphasise that neither I nor (I hope!) the article mentions his "Germanness". I don't think he was German, and we're definitely not trying to say that; what he had was German heritage through his family background, and I don't think any source disputes that.

The Edward VIII article is, strictly, not reliable anyway per WP:WINRS; but especially so as, coincidentally, it was nominated to have its FA-status reviewed at the same time. It's true that ODNB doesn't emphasise his heritage, although I note it mentions him having relatives in Germany.

As for King, well, it's this chap (crummy article though), and Kensington Publishing has an article here which lists various—in wiki-terms—notable authors. I don't see anything to set off alarums; King isn't making—or being used to support—any particularly radical claims: although I'm always happy to tweak the language if you think it will help. Cheers, Dudley Miles! ——Serial ^# 07:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

1. There is nothing in the King article which shows that he is a reliable source. 2. The article on Kensington Books lists mainly romantic and horror novelists, plus Gerina Dunwich, who is described as "a professional astrologer, occult historian, and New Age author, best known for her books on Wicca and various occult subjects". It is not an academic publisher. 3. It should be possible to find reviews of a reputable biography. I cannot find any of King's book. 4. DNB says that Edward was taught German by a tutor. You quote KIng saying that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native". This is a radical claim and is disproved by your article, which states that Schmidt was the translator at the meeting between Hitler and Edward and Forwood accused him of mistranslating. This shows that Edward was not fluent in German and King is not an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dudley Miles, I swapped out that quote from King, but luckily have reliable sources for e.g his fluency in German (not shown by Paul Schmidt's presence at the Berghof, and now clarified in the text) and his ancestry. No-one has anything to complain of now, unless they bought a Charles and Di teatowel in 1981 :D ——Serial ^# 14:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha, Dudley Miles, I found another source, this one explains your question above re. the diplomat meeting them at the station and Pgivie-Forbes visiting his hotel: the former was only (deliberately) a Third Secretary, reflecting their understating of the visit. Good news! ——Serial ^# 15:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine now, apart from the citations of King. I think you should delete him from the sources and find other refs where he is cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: yeah, I have done now so: everything was more or less sourceable from scholarly texts, except for one sentence I removed completely. ——Serial ^# 18:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Cheers Dudley Miles, we got there in the end  :) thanks as ever for the in-depth review...and almost the source review! ——Serial ^# 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Have been following this almost edit by edit since the nom, and I hope helping with the ce. The visit is fascinating, obv for all the wrong reasons; my god the wrongheadedness and hubris. The page brings all this out excellently, well done to the nominator. It is now at a point where I can support, though I see it is continually improving from the feedback above. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Very kind, Ceoil, and I hope you know I appreciate your copy edits—you always leaver the place better than you found it. Take care of yourself! ——Serial ^# 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Airborne84

Comments coming. Airborne84 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this. Comprehensive. Sources look good. Thanks for your efforts. Comments below.

• Could you briefly introduce Robert Ley in the lede? E.g., "the couple were chaperoned by Robert Ley (2-3 word intro)". The name without intro gave me pause as I tried to figure out who he was.

I recast this, to read The Duke and Duchess were officially invited to the country by the German Labour Front, and were chaperoned for much of their visit by its leader, Robert Ley; better?

Better, thanks.

• "Ley's behaviour was reported to Hitler". By whom? If it's known who did it, this would be welcome info, I think, for the average reader. I found myself wondering who it was. If it's not in the sources, OK.

Unfortunately, it isn't, but I found another sure which provides an eyewitness account of the gatecrashing and have swapped out that sentence. A quote from Sopple: still doesn't say who grassed on Ley, but mentions Göring, etc.

No problem. This works fine as well.

• "The tour may have given rise to later suspicions that, on in the case of a successful outcome to Operation Sea Lion—a German invasion of Britain—the Duke would be appointed a puppet king." There's a grammar problem in there somewhere. Is the word "on" extraneous?

Indeed! Gone.

• "Vickers, similarly, suggests that episode such as the tour have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi:" This passage needs a slight copyedit.

It was pretty bad that. How about that while the tour may have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi...?

Much better, thanks.

• In your sources, I think this one is missing a "W": "indsor, Duke of: From Mr. Ogilvie-Forbes (to Mr. Harvey)".

Well spotted!

• Also in the sources, English-language titles of works are rendered in title case, so "Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot" and similar should be adjusted.

I've changed that; I couldn't see any others, but if I've missed any, could you let me know? I don't think so, but.

The only other one I saw (Unknown ODNB author) doesn't appear to fall under the listed WP:MOS works for title case, so I think you're good.

• What makes the Context section near the end different than the Background section at the beginning? I.e., why couldn’t the Context material be combined with the Background? I'm not saying it needs to be, I'm just wondering about the rationale. The context section actually addressed another of my questions about the German background, since there was some passing German context in there (as well as throughout the article). Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point: I don't know. And because I don't know, and no-one else has noticed, I've moved it into its own "Political context" section of the background. How does that look?

Very nice. The background is comprehensive and sets the stage well for the reader. This actually solved another concern of mine that I won't bring up now. Something else to consider would be to swap the last two subsections in the Background section. Then, that section would start broad, narrow a bit to Political context, narrow a bit more to the British Royal and govt. view, and then narrow still more to the Windsor's views. You'd have to study it a bit more than I did to see if that would work well—my initial look at how the transitions would work within the section and to the next section seemed like it might work fine. However, to be clear, my support does not rest on you making this change. Just something to consider. Airborne84 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Airborne84, taking the reader from the general to the particular: I've done that. Appreciate the support  :) All the best. "See" you soon! ——Serial ^# 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for flying in, Airborne84  :) let me know if I've addressed your points satisfactorily. I've noticed your low-level copyediting, by the way—much appreciated! "Many hands make light work", as they say  :) ——Serial ^# 07:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Unknown ODNB author — this is not the best way to format it imo. I would omit the author and use |ref=CITEREFODNBdate, or alternately |author=ODNB (which would match TNA)

Done.

• Center of the Web—as this is an edited collection (apparently edited by George Constable [5]) you need to cite the chapter and the author of that chapter.

Negative edited collection. It's available at Archive.org (you shouldn't need an account for such an early page as this); the authors are "the Editors of Time-Life Books"; George Constable is the big-time editor of the entire thing (over the Exec-Editor even) (or possibly a general consultant, according to our article), and apart from them, an entire page of editors and consultants. I doubt there's room on the template...

Hmm, you're right.

• Primary sources appear to be used minimally and appropriately. (Although Speer was so mendacious I would have probably just left him out).

You know dat. I had to go and wash my hands afterwards. But he was following on neatly from the other nazi views. Having said that, I've found a RS that bacs the quote up independently.

• NDE—this publisher is so obscure I can hardly find any info about them online. Why do you think it is RS?

Not so much the publisher, but the author, a respected German historian, etc., and while NDE is bizarrely obscure, if I'd cited the German electronic edition—an imprint of Random House—the French edition, published by JC Lattès, the German print edition, by Heyne Verlag. Anyway, you get my drift. Although I agree that it's odd no Eng-lang edition seems to have been published in—for example—London, only Canada and South Africa, as far as I can see. Perhaps they're trying to put a bit of work the colonies' way.

• BBC News Inconsistent date format

Done.

• pp. 122–186. not verifiable.

Meant to be 182-7, done.

• p. ch.5 §72. should use |loc=

Done.

• Other sources appear to be at least marginally reliable. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Err, right! Cheers Buidhe, hope you're well. ——Serial ^# 11:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Above issues are resolved, however another has appeared: "Williams 2020, p. 230. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

D'OH. Thanks Buidhe, totally forgot to add the source). Unbelievable...done now  :) ——Serial ^# 12:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Carabinieri

Hi, I've started by looking at the sources. There are several statements I've been unable to verify:

• "The couple and their entourage—which included the Duke's cousin Prince Phillip von Hessen[116]—travelled around Germany on Hitler's personal train, the Führersonderzug," Could you provide a quote for the claim that Philipp (that's how Morton spells the name, as does our article, is this a typo?) was part of the entourage and rode on the train? I can't find this.

Thanks for spotting that typo; the word you want is condiment.

Thank you.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Hitler subsequently asserted that Wallis, in his opinion, would have been a friendly Queen to Germany." Could you provide a quote for this assertion? I'm having trouble counting to 31.

Very funny!

The closest thing I was able to find is "After they drove away, Hitler said to his interpreter: 'The Duchess would have made a good queen'". That's not the same thing as saying that she would have been friendly to Germany.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think if anyone reads that to mean anything other than "a good Queen to Germany", then they're reaching a bit, as that entire section is regarding how good he would have been for them; and no-one is suggesting, I imagine, that Hitler had much concern for how good a King he would be for Britain! Still, I could tweak it, if you would prefer.

The section is about Hitler and the Windsors being impressed with each other. It also says that, according to the interpreter, Hitler thought the Duke of Windsor sympathized with Nazism. There is no indication that he assumed the same of the Queen or that he thought the two would have been friendly to Germany were they on the throne.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• "The new prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, disagreed with the tour and privately worked against it; but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach, 'as a convinced monarchist [he] did everything to keep the institution intact'." The part about keeping the institution intact is referring to the British government's decision not to make documents on the visit public. The way this quote is presented makes that unclear. Also, as far as I can tell the Prime Minister that Urbach is referring to is Churchill and not Chamberlain.

I think not; although I agree that it would read much more clearly if the words [of the day] were inserted after "the Prime Minister".

The source Urbach gives is a memorandum sent by Churchill in 1940. Also, in that paragraph she is writing about the suppression of documents on the visit so it makes sense that that would have happened later. Using this quote in the article doesn't make sense to me, since it's about said suppression which isn't mentioned. Urbach doesn't say anything about the Prime Minster 'working against' the tour.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense to me, as they are discussing the Duke's behaviour in the late 30s, when Chruchill was in his wilderness...having said that, I'm not so invested in Urbach (!!!) as to insist on her quote staying in.

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. Are you saying that Urbach is indeed referring Chamberlain? Then why is she referencing a memorandum written by Churchill in 1940? Are you also disputing that "did everything to keep the institution intact" is a reference to the British suppression of documents related to the visit? If you are, what do you make that quote out to mean? And where does Urbach say that the Prime Minister worked to stop the visit?--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,--Carabinieri (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, ——Serial ^# 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding more issues:

• "The political background to the tour was tense. In the east, Japan was on the verge of invading China. In Europe, the Spanish Civil War, which had broken out the previous year, upset the balance of power, drawing in Russia, Italy and Germany". These sentences have two sources. I'm not sure what Lobell, Taliaferro, and Ripsman is supporting at all. All they say is that Germany and the Soviet Union were on the rise. Buchanan discusses what Roosevelt thought of the situation in Spain in 1939, but doesn't say anything about the balance of power being disturbed in 1937. Neither of the sources mentions Japan (the chronology is a bit confusing as well, the Japanese attack on China started several months before the Windsors' tour, so by that it was no longer "on the verge"). Neither source ties any of this back to the Windsors' tour.

They will not tie back to the tour, as they are not intended to. They provide standalone background. Although the reference to Japan was a hangover from a now disused source, and has been removed, good spot. ——Serial ^# 15:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• "although foreign policy remained predicated on appeasement" I don't know what Berman is doing here. Lobo-Guerrero seems to be about the insurance implications of the appeasement policy so I'm really sure that's the best source here.

I think the sources and the article's text-source integrity probably need to be vetted more closely. Just looking at the background section a lot of the details also seem a bit extraneous to me: for example, Wallis's marriage history and the technical legal details of the coronation oath could easily be trimmed. There are also way too many quotes. Per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and per WP:CLOP: "Quotation [...] may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source".--Carabinieri (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• The sourcing has been thoroughly examined by multiple editors already; I think it's as, if not more likely, that you are misreading the sources (you appear to have done this a number of times already, as well as admitting you won't count to 31?!). In any case, I suggest you oppose now, as I am intending to hat this thread. Likewise, your views on quotations—that is, your interpretation—are your own, but no other editor has complained, so I won't be considering this point actionable. Thanks anyway! ——Serial ^# 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously? I have given you multiple instances where you misrepresented sources and this is your response? Please substantiate your claim that I have misread sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sources often do not say what you think they say; that's why you cannot find what you are looking for! All the best, ——Serial ^# 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please substantiate these claims.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusing Churchill's discussion of Chamerlain with Churchill himself; not recognising the value of a piece titled the Broken Balance between the World Wars in a discussion regarding the, err, European balance of power. For example. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nominator has indicated that they intend to ignore anything I write. I'm also uncertain about the status of this nomination since the nominator has blanked the page. I suppose I'm mainly writing this for the FAC coordinators' benefit. As I have indicated, I do not believe this article meets the FA criteria. The main issue is that there are discrepancies between sources and content referenced to. I've only checked a few of the sources, but I've found enough issues to where I'd be uncomfortable with this article being promoted unless all of them are vetted more carefully. Here are a few examples:

• "In Europe, the Spanish Civil War, which had broken out the previous year, upset the balance of power, drawing in Russia, Italy and Germany" There are two sources for this sentence. The first one, Lobell, Taliaferro, and Ripsman, mentions that the rise of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was upsetting the balance of power in Europe, but doesn't mention the Spanish Civil War at all. The second source, Buchanan, says that in 1939 Roosevelt was worried the Nationalist victory in the Civil War might upset the balance of power in Europe. It doesn't say anything about what the situation was in 1937. There is broader issue as well. None of the sources for the first paragraph in the "Political context" section tie the events they describe to the Windsors' tour of Germany. The article links them ("The European political background to the tour was tense"), but that is not backed by the sources.
• "although foreign policy remained predicated on appeasement" This again is backed by two sources. The first source, Berman, is about something else entirely and doesn't mention appeasement at all, at least not on the pages that are cited. These pages are about Dutch and French socialists' economic policies in the 1930s.
• "Charles Bedaux, whom Bloch describes as an 'enigmatic time and motion tycoon'." The source for this is Bloch 1988 (Secret File of the Duke of Windsor). I only have access to a different edition of the book, so I might be wrong, but in this edition Bedaux is described as "the French-American time-and-motion tycoon" and then the "expansive time-and-motion tycoon". This quote does appear in Bloch 1983 (The Duke of Windsor's War), albeit with hyphens as "the enigmatic time-and-motion tycoon" on page 155.
• "By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, on behalf of the German government, had formally offered the Duke a tour of Germany" the source does not give any indication that Solbert was acting on behalf of the German government.
• "The German side of things was organised by Hitler's adjutant, Captain Fritz Wiedemann, with final preparations discussed at the Paris Ritz in late September." and "It is more likely, she says, that these rooftop restaurant meetings involved men such as Wiedemann finalising the itinerary and other minutiae" These two sentences are referring to the same event, so it's more than a bit confusing that they are in different paragraphs as if they were distinct events. Also, Cadbury, the source for the second sentence, only says that Wiedemann was probably involved not "men such as Wiedemann".
• "Hitler subsequently asserted that Wallis, in his opinion, would have been a friendly Queen to Germany." The sentence is referenced to Morton 2015. The closest thing in the source is "After they drove away, Hitler said to his interpreter: 'The Duchess would have made a good queen'".
• "The general consensus among later 20th-century historians is that the visit reflected poorly on Windsor's judgement" I'm not sure where this is from. The next footnote cites Powell who doesn't say this as far as I can tell. If this is based on Wikipedia editors' summary of the historiography, then it's original research. This claim is repeated in the lead as "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received", which has the added problem that it's obvious that no pre-modern historians commented on an event in 1937.
• "The new prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, disagreed with the tour and privately worked against it; but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach, 'as a convinced monarchist [he] did everything to keep the institution intact'". The paragraph in Urbach's book this is referenced to is about the so-called Windsor Files, information about Windsor and his views about Germany compiled by the German government. They concern this particular tour but also his behavior in general. The British government tried to prevent publication of the Files after the war.

The part of the sentence about the Prime Minister trying to prevent the tour has no basis in Urbach's book. Secondly, Urbach is referring to Churchill and not Chamberlain. The nominator has insisted I'm wrong about this. I've looked at the source every which way, but I don't see how it can be read as referring to Chamberlain. Urbach is discussing Windsor's behavior in general before he was sent to the Bahamas, not just this tour. Moreover, the source Urbach cites is a memorandum written by Churchill, not Chamberlain. Thirdly, the way the article presents the Urbach quote makes it unclear what "did everything to keep the institution intact" is referring to. She's talking about the suppression of the files, but this is not made clear in the article.

There are also some inconsistencies in the bibliography:

• The Secret File of the Duke of Windsor is listed as having been published in by Little, Brown in 1988. As far as I can tell, Little, Brown didn't publish this book until 2012, so I'm not sure what edition is being used in the article. The ISBN leads to the 2012 edition, so I'm guessing that Little, Brown is correct but the year should be 2012 (possibly with orig-year 1988).
• Merriman's book actually consists of two volumes, so the bibliography should specify which volume is being used so that the page numbers are unique. Additionally, the ISBN given in the bibliography is actually that of the first volume ("From the Renaissance to the Age of Napoleon") which is certainly the wrong one.
• Radclife is not used in any footnotes.

Since I've found these issues by only checking a small fraction of the sources, I think all of the sources need to be thoroughly vetted before the article can be promoted. While this is the biggest issue with the article in my estimation, there are several more. The article delves into several extraneous details and uses far more quotations than I think can be justified based on our guidelines (Per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and per WP:CLOP: "Quotation [...] may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source".)--Carabinieri (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, at first glance, impressive, and there's certainly a couple of minor things I could address if I was inclined; but, a closer eading indicates that, in the vast majority of examples, you're (presumably accidentally) misreading either the sources or what I say; if it was only the one, we could work off that, but both? Sorry, that would waste both our time. As I said, I was concerned at the start when you said you were unable to count to 31: I hoped to see signs of improvement in the review, but that was not to be. All the best, ——Serial ^# 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, wrongly accusing a guy of working on behalf of the Nazi German government is such a trifling matter. Kudos to you for not being inclined to correct that.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article at no point suggests that he was "working on behalf of" anyone, but as an example of you misreading and misrepresenting, again, what I have said, that's a good'un. It's also an aspersion: I'd be inclined to correct 'that, if I were you) In fact, as far as core content policies go, your insinuation that somehow the article in its current state is in breach of NPoV is laughably insecure, and I wonder at your chutzpah. As I said, I'd have been happy working on your sensible recommendations, such as they were: but separating the wheat from the chaff in your comments, as I'd need to do, is a wholly unwelcome task. Also, an unnecessary one, when multiple reviewers have examined this article and its sourcing in detail, and there is no consensus whatsoever in favor of your allegations. ——Serial ^# 10:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says that he was communicating on behalf of the German government, the source does not. It's as simple as that. I did not claim that article violated NPOV, but there are multiple instances where it misrepresents sources...Carabinieri (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You're literally looking at another article to me. Who'se misrepresenting sources?! He was not "communicating on behalf of the German government", and none say he was (except for Martin Allen, who I do not consider an RS and have not used). This is getting bizarre. The article explicitly says he made a minimum of speeches (etc) and was used by the German gov't (he clearly was), but not that he willingly did so himself. In fact, there's plenty of discussion as to the opposite? ——Serial ^# 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, on behalf of the German government, had formally offered the Duke a tour of Germany" How would you interpret that other than as saying that Solbert was communicating on behalf of the German government?--Carabinieri (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about Solbert. I assumed you were talking about Windsor whom the bloody article is about. ——Serial ^# 14:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to address your actionable issues—for instance the ISBN/2 volume note was well-spotted (as I only have the 2-in-1 version). The minor formating, presentation points you raise might be mior, but that's certainly no reason not to address them. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 13:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr Kay

• Support on all criteria, including source and image review and spot check. Four trivial comments, which you can feel free to ignore, and don't need to respond to: (1) Personally, I might have bundled the four cites at the end of neither his family, government, Church nor people would support the marriage. (2) There is a quote from Petropoulos that includes at the Hess's home, while I did check the source and it is accurately quoted, I believe that if this was correct grammar it would be either at the Hesses' home or at Hess's home. One way out is to drop the words from the quote. (3) The quote from Crawford no sense of his own is given twice. (4) I believe the ODNB article was written by Ziegler. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@DrKay: No, let me. I appreciate you popping in—our resident expert, so to speak. For what it's worth, I've addressed three out of the four pints you raised—each is good—except for the Ziegler. Is our own knowledge sufficient to make that claim do you think? I mean, I'm sure you're correct, but is it strictly verifiable? Incidentally, you also don't need to reply here if you don't wish  :) but it would have been rude of me not to have, in my book. All the best! ——Serial ^# 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well if I am a resident expert, we now have two! Ziegler was credited as the author ten years ago, but I see that his name has been removed. So, as the ODNB currently stands, you're correct that it's anonymous. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I have had this watch listed since it was nominated, thinking that for once I would wait for the dust to die down before having a look. But the dust declines to settle, so I will have a poke at it anyway, concentrating in particular on what seem to be the contentious bits. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely one for the dust buster, Gog. cheers, ——Serial 18:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• "most viewing it as in bad taste". Optional: → 'most viewing it as in poor taste'?

Done.

• "both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received." Optional: → 'both the Duke's lack of judgement and of his disregard for the advice he received'.

Done.

• "By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, suggested the Duke take a tour of Germany, itself intended to be the first of many other countries" The construction of this sentence - especially but not only the comma placement - doesn't really work for me.

How about Solbert suggested that the Duke take a tour of Germany, which was later intended to precede that of other countries?

Do we need "later"? If not it is fine; if we do it still looks a bit tortured.

@Gog the Mild: That's true; the only thing that stops me—almost instinctively—from removing it, is that it might then imply that Solbert was suggesting a world tour with Germany as the opening leg, whereas the idea to visit other countries seems to have been a (*ahem!*) later idea. In other words, Solbert suggested the tour of Germany, but not necessarily any other countries. But perhaps I'm reading to much into it; what d'you think?

I think you are right. Maybe something like "By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert had suggested the Duke take a tour of Germany; this later came to be seen as the first of several planned international tours'. Not necessarily those words, but something clearly separating out the two ideas. What think you?

@Gog the Mild: Good suggestion, I'm thinking ...Solbert had suggested the Duke take a tour of Germany; this was soon intended to be the first of several planned international tours. ——Serial 21:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Go for it.

• "It also, according to the modern historian John Vincent, demonstrates ..." I fail to see what "It" is referring to.

Probably a hangover from sth now removed. I've recast to say The German government was funding the visit, which, suggests the modern historian John Vincent, allowed them to choreograph it.

• "This was the most modern factory in Germany". Sounds PoVy to me; you happy saying that in Wikipedia's voice?

Done: tweaked to remove the subjectivity of modernity (!!!) and replaced with why the D. would have gone there in the first place (Mercedes HQ).

• "Cadbury says how "Göring's face wrinkled with amusement, observed Wallis." Perhaps you could recast this?

Mmmm. moody. Perhaps, Cadbury quotes Wallis: "Göring's face wrinkled with amusement... The Austrians would want to be part of the Reich", he had said. Wallis noted that "the moment passed, the statement left unchallenged" by the Duke?

Fine.

• "In his diary, the Earl of Crawford summed up the political establishment's views on the Duke". It may be worth inserting 'British'.

Replaced "political" with "British", as I guess the latter rather implies the former does it not.

It does; fine.

Apart from the trivia above, that all seems fine. All of the FA criteria seem met (bar number three - I haven't looked at the images). So, time to look at what others are objecting to in detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Harry's comments, I am aware that I am now looking at a version of the article that differs from that which he was commenting on, possibly significantly so. Speaking just for myself:

• I do not find the language flowery.
• I do feel that there are occasions where you have not given in line attribution but should. I have flagged up one above, my fifth comment, but on a skim can't find any other glaring cases - I assume that this has been tightened up since Harry made his comment.
• "the prose could be tightened": well, if I were writing it, or even giving it a comprehensive copy edit, I would tighten the prose, but I have, frequently, read worse "professional" prose and it gets over my personal bar for "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"; I assume no one is suggesting that it is not engaging.
• I find the current level of footnotes a little high: eg is number four an "unnecessary detail"; I completely fail to see the point of number nine. On the other hand, I would have thought that number nineteen was germane enough to earn a place in the main text - which is almost PoVy without it. If you have culled 12 then I quite see Harry's point. I write, as you know, as an inveterate user of multiple footnotes in my FACs. As the article stands, I personally feel that it passes my not too broad, not too tight test; there are things which I would remove or promote in the footnotes, but none which I feel merit an oppose.

On this, I removed #s 4 and 9; parenthesised #19.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

eBooks are mentioned by Dudley Miles. I have had issues with these, which I have so far ducked by persuading someone with access to the paper text to do the donkey work for me. WP:V seems a red herring as it says nothing about pages numbers; your suggestion of using "|loc=" to give the prose in the text which is relied on by the cite so that it can be searched for via cntl+f seems an entirely reasonable approach to verifiability to me. I note that this wasn't the case when Dudley made there comments. Is it now? If not, I would be inclined to agree with Dudley.

Rather than WP:V I think that the pair of you mean WP:CITE; a guideline which states "Citations for books typically include: ... chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate". (My added emphasis in all cases.) It also states "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title." Your proposed use of "|loc=" would seem to me to meet "you can use other means of identifying the relevant section" and so close the conversation.

|loc= inserted throughout, plus paragraphination. Wish I'd waited for the sodding library to open though!

I have drafted a proposal to deal with ebooks User:Dudley Miles/sandbox. I have not followed it up as I am busy with other projects and I am not sure whether it is too complex, but you might like to see whether there is anything you find useful in it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Carabinieri has opposed on the basis of a lack of fidelity of the article to the sources cited. There seems little alternative, if I am to form a view on this, to examining the cases which they have flagged up. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cite 108 b: To read "the Prime Minister" in Urbach as anyone other than Chamberlain seems to me to be a strained and unnatural reading of the text. The cite IMO fully supports the text.

• Cite 146: I feel that the nominator is stretching here. I see where they are coming from, but I agree with Carabibieri's "There is no indication that he assumed the same of the Queen [Wallace} or that he thought the two would have been friendly to Germany were they on the throne." Suggest "would have been a friendly queen to Germany" → 'would have made a good queen'.

Done.

• Cites 18 and 19: I fail to see Carabinieri's point. The sources support the claim - which is, anyway, a 'statement of the bleeding obvious'. The objection that the sources do not tie this back to the Windsors seems, to me, irrelevant.

• Cites 21 and 22: another statement of the bleeding obvious. Berman: " the rise of the Nazis next door made all democratic forces aware that France was entering a new and dangerous era." Oh come on, you can find better support than that. I also note that the book doesn't mention the word "appeasement" once. Lobo-Guerrero just about supports the claim, but Carabiniero is correct that "Lobo-Guerrero seems to be about the insurance implications of the appeasement policy so I'm [not] really sure that's the best source here." and that "Berman, is about something else entirely and doesn't mention appeasement at all, at least not on the pages that are cited. These pages are about Dutch and French socialists' economic policies in the 1930s."

Yeah...that's a bit bizarre. I mean, citing 1930s Britain's policy of appeasement is kind of WP:SKYBLUE. Have replaced the citation with one from a book dedicated to the topic.

• Cite 75: "on behalf of the German government" has been removed per Carabinieri.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have been unable to access a copy of Powell to check if it supports "The general consensus among later 20th-century historians is that the visit reflected poorly on Windsor's judgement". Any chance of quoting the text in Powell which supports this, and/or giving additional/alternative cites at the end of the relevant sentence?

He's very inexplicit, and may only be referring to a few others, so expunged.

I don't feel that the sourcing has any more flaws than many FACs might have if one really picks at them. That said, some of Carabinieri's points are entirely valid; and the point at which one feels that the identification of more than one problem with sourcing undermines one's faith in the sourcing generally is liable to be subjective. Having discounted some of Carabinieri's comments, and SN having already addressed others, for me that point has not been reached.

Re Carabinieri's "a lot of the details also seem a bit extraneous to me". This seems a little unreasonable to me. Almost any reviewer is going to find almost any article either a little broad or a little over-focused for *their* taste. The test (IMO) is whether completely extraneous information has been introduced, or important issues have been overlooked. All of the examples which Carabinieri points out seem to me to be arguably relevant to the article. (Personally I would go further, and say that they are fine, but there is always a subjective element and I claim no more than the average degree of perspicacity in this regard.)

That's it from me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Gog the Mild, appreciate that perspective. And thanks for looking in, as always. Cheers! ——Serial 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you have trouble pulling my actionable comments out of that screed of opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wilco :) thanks again! ——Serial 10:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've addressed you suggestions and other remarks, I think, hopefully successfully. Let me know what you think, they're my most recent edits there, (A),(B) and (C). All the best! ——Serial 18:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good. Just my one niggle above. ("later" etc.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Having reread all of the contributions above, and giving especial consideration to Carabinieri's comments, I believe that this article, as it currently stands, meets all of the FAC criteria and so am supporting its promotion. In particular, from Carabinieri's closing comments on 7 July, I am happy, having looked hard at them, with the sourcing, the quantity of quotations, and the amount (if any) of "extraneous" detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.