Talk:Klemens von Metternich

First message

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

Sources???

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

Lasting Principles

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

I am surprised that the article in no way 'demonises' him for the censorship within Vienna, that he was at least partly responsible for. The article on Grillparzer, says "Then came the Revolution which struck off the intellectual fetters under which Grillparzer and his contemporaries had groaned in Austria, but the liberation came too late for him."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by J27325 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 

Credibility

If anything makes an article lose its credibility in the eyes of a critical reader, it is the inability to place an apostrophe in the right place. OK, we can all make mistakes, and maybe this is a just a minor mistyping. Or perhaps the author just does not understand how apostrophes work ... and if that is the case, what else does he not understand? The word "committee's" in the last paragraph on Post-Napoleonic Europe is a plural ... no apostrophe needed (Harry Goldsmith)

Apostrophe placement is actually a rather poor measure of credibility, and many useful essays are written by authors whose editors save them from this sort of obvious mispunctuation. That said, it is probably less work for you to fix these minor solecisms than to write at length about their implications....<g> - Nunh-huh 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A poor translation?

Tried editing the first section (and have removed text like 'your gay') but it is very stilted as if translated. Needs a total rewrite by someone who knows the period. rsloch 00:55, 10 June 2006 (GMT)

Should have been 'you're gay', right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J27325 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Link not working

Link 1 (http://www.h-net.org/~habsweb/sourcetexts/censor.htm) does not work.

I have just tried it, and it does work. Check your browser's config.Chimba 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Article needs major work

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

I needed to look up where this guy- Prince Metternich was born and that information is not even in this article! It just says he was born in Austria- that doesn't help. 68.18.162.224 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, pedants.

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

WAY too many "citation needed"s

Honestly, the big fat one at the top of the page is enough, we know up front that the article in unsourced. Adding a "citation needed" tag to every single sentence is unnecessary and just renders it garbled and unreadable. I think we should remove most of them. 83.11.3.17 11:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Object! The article is UGGLY! An extra "citation needed" is a mark of higher priority lapsi. F.ex.:

After World War II some historians pointed out that one of the main reasons for his opposition to giving power to the people was his apprehension that eventually it would lead to the political dominance of German nationalism.

not to be objected as such: some extremely biased historians may actually claim such self-proving stuff. But after WWII the NPOV of historians was in a very bad shape, demonizing Germany instead of nazism – and the opposite can very well be claimed, that Metternich'es actions in the long run had the effect of emergence of authoritarian rule instead of democracy in Germany. I think this is an example of blatant logical faults (of the historians, not us), that deserve such statements to be moved far down into the article, into a discussing section on the political thinking of Metternich. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the discussion pagedon't seem to work. Therefore, I would humbly suggest, the David Thomson's classic Europe Since Napolean becomes a reference (as well as an avid read). [P.S. Little bro', ain't it, you found my original purchase...?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy Thoughts (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Words

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

Title

Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich is a horrible title. We should never put different languages together like that ("Prince von"). The old title Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, was basically fine, even if it didn't clarify that he was Fürst rather than merely Prinz. Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich would be horrible as well. Or we could just do Klemens Wenzel von Metternich (which is more or less what we do with Otto von Bismarck). At any rate the English "Prince" and the German "von" used in the same phrase is just awful. john k (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the above user. While I don't think "Prince of Metternich" is horrible, I would rather no title be used if it's going to be "von Metternich". Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich or Klemens Wenzel von Metternich. The same with his son, etc. Seven Letters 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. john k (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich → Klemens von Metternich — By far the most commonly used name for him. Compare Otto von Bismarck, whose situation is similar. We don't have any explicit rules about using titles with German nobility, but in my opinion we should go very light on using their noble titles in the article title, because these simply aren't used very much. john k (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. I think he may be most usually referred to as just "Metternich", but the proposal is an improvement over the current title—as said some sections up, "Prince von" isn't especially elegant. The parallel with Bismarck is a good one. Ucucha 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Opposeper the applicable guideline, NCROY Other cases point #1 ("follow English usage, which tends to accept pretences to titles and reject pretences to thrones"), with which this title is in compliance -- no consensus to change NCROY on this point having been obtained. No parallel with Bismarck holds because "Otto" has always been much more in use for Bismarck than "Klemens" has for Metternich. Indeed, Metternich's better known as "Prince" than by his first name, so why not drop "Klemens" instead, if the object (why? Wikipedia running out of space?) is to truncate names down to the bare minimum that is recognizable. Or, as Ucucha correctly notes, better yet -- pursuant to the rationale for this move -- would be the single meme "Metternich". FactStraight (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You're saying that following English usage means we should have this title? You are giving the whole thing out of context, at any rate, because that is referring to "titles that have been suppressed," and gives "Duke of Bavaria" as an example. Metternich's titles were recognized, and not suppressed, and thus that qualifier does not apply to him anyway. What it actually says for continental nobility is Treat other European nobility like British nobility above, adopting for local circumstances. I assume that should be "adapting for local circumstances." In my opinion, we should "adapt for local circumstances" by generally ignoring noble titles for mediatized and territorial German nobility in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, because those noble titles are not all that commonly used. Metternich is called "Prince Metternich" in the same way Bismarck is called "Prince Bismarck." Both are called "Metternich" and "Bismarck" more commonly, just as Abraham Lincoln is typically called "Lincoln" or the third marquess of Salisbury is called "Salisbury." How is "Metternich" a "meme"? The fact that, in English, we tend to call most people by their surnames is not an argument of any kind. I see no reason to believe that Metternich is called by just his surname any more commonly than any of the thousands of other persons in world history known primarily by their surname. I would be pretty happy with alternative titles like Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, or some variant there of, but the current title is horrible - it puzzlingly mixes German and English forms, while "Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich" which would correct that, enjoys no usage in reliable sources that I am aware of. Just looking through some indexes of books before me, Robin Okey's The Habsburg Monarchy (2000) indexes him at "Metternich, Prince Clemens Wenzel". R.J.W. Evans's Austria, Hungary, and the Habsburg Monarchy (2009) calls him "Metternich, Klemens Wenzel" Evans and Pogge von Strandmann's The Revolutions of 1848 (2000) uses "Metternich, Clemens, Prince". Robert Kann's History of the Habsburg Empire (1974) uses "Metternich, Prince Clemens Lothar". David Laven's Venice and Venetia under the Habsburgs has "Metternich, Prince Clemens Lothar Wenzel von." I'd say that a) we should probably use "Clemens" rather than "Klemena"; b) the preferred middle name seems unclear; some give Clemens Wenzel, some Clemens Lothar, some all three, and some just Clemens. If we want to go purely by common usage (in reliable sources that are also giving a full name, and not just using his last name), the old title of Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich is much better than this one. john k (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, because "Prince von Metternich" doesn't look or sound right. Srnec (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME. For example, there are 100 times more gbooks hits and 100 times more gscholar hits for the proposed target compared to the current name. DrKay (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support This or Klemens Wenzel, Prince of Metternich. Seven Letters 17:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement, but Prince Metternich seems vastly more common still.--Kotniski (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Assuming there is a consensus for a move, I assume it would be alright to move his son's article from Richard Klemens, Prince von Metternich to Richard von Metternich? john k (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since I find the argument in support of this move unsupported by NCROY and am unpersuaded by arguments seen thus far, I'd prefer to see a discussion demonstrating consensus on that specific move. FactStraight (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

NCROY has nothing specific to say about this, and even if it did, there seems to be clear consensus (near unanimity) for the proposed move in the discussion above. I don't think the current title is at all supportable in any sense.--Kotniski (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Though on the son, "Richard Metternich" or "Prince Richard Metternich" seem vastly more common than anything with "von" in it. If we are to be informed by English usage (and I don't see what else we have to go on here), I can't see any reason not to choose Prince Metternich for the father and Richard Metternich for the son.--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I am not a fan of using noble titles as the title of articles on people. Your solution wouldn't be awful, but we've already got a vote going on for another option. As for Richard Metternich, on thinking about it, I believe I call him "Prince Richard Metternich" or "Richard Metternich" in my dissertation, but I basically think either form is fine. Given that he and his father held the same title, I think it makes sense to treat them analogously, and certainly "Richard von Metternich" is not unheard of - it gets more basic google hits than "Richard Metternich". john k (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so it does - strangely, since both google books and scholar seem to have it the other way round.--Kotniski (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, I've moved the other article to "Richard von Metternich"; hopefully an admin will be along to move this one similarly.--Kotniski (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin, so I could move it, but wasn't sure whether that would be appropriate. john k (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nearly a fortnight has passed and consensus is very clearly in favour of a move. I don't see the harm at all. Seven Letters 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History or hagiography?

I'm admittedly judging this with all the historical expertise of a classical musician, but I was surprised to read through this article about a historical figure whose name among Viennese is still synonymous with political repression and censorship, and find almost no neutral, well-sourced mention of criticism against him. Rather, it reads like a poorly-sourced hagiography of a great man who was long misunderstood by liberals. Any mention of the uglier aspects of his rule is written in a loaded, "some misguided people have said..." style, again without citations. My first impression was that the article has been hijacked by some conservative partisan who is a fan of Henry Kissinger, but the article history shows a different state of affairs; most of the skewed material was added gradually by anonymous IP addresses.

I do not know the literature about Metternich, and only know what I've read in biographies of Beethoven and Schubert, but then again, there isn't much evidence that the authors of the fawning "Minister of State" and "Legacy" sections knew the literature either. I seriously doubt that these aspects have not been mentioned by good historians of the period.

I notice that there's been a neutrality tag in place for the last two years. Is there no one knowledgeable of the historical literature who can fix these glaring issues? If not, I can personally translate some of the material from German wikipedia, which seems much more neutrally-written. Junggai (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

After checking out the history of this article and a few references, I've noticed that quite a few statements in the article were lifted directly from 1911 Britannica, which is colorfully-written but hardly neutral, and subsequent editors softened much of this language without realizing that it was plagiarized. I'll do my best to work on the "legacy" section, since the German wikipedia article is extremely good and is laid out as: "Historian X says X, Historian Y says Y, etc..." It seems like a good template for fixing the article's POV problems. To do any more would require me getting up to speed on the literature, which would be a stretch for me personally. Anyone else who would like to help is welcome.

But please, whoever finds the NPOV and citation tags too ugly should work to fix the article rather than removing them, as someone just did. Junggai (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This guy was German and even called himself a German Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.185.104 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Plans for the article

Hey all. I just thought I'd make a note that this article is one of my WP:Wikicup targets for this year. I have, in my possession, a biography of Metternich by Alan Plamer, which I am first going to go through meticulously to expand the article to a decent length. The next stage will be to layer another other books I can get hold of. After that, I will finish off with what I can glean from Google-Books sources, before putting it through a GA.

That much is certain. In later rounds, when I have more time, it would also be nice to get the article to featured status. But that's a little way off. In the meantime and beyond, any help with the article - if only copyediting and flagging up dubious/misleading sentences - would be much appreciated. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad you're working on this. I came here to look for information about Metternich's marriages, and there isn't even a mention of his first wife dying, and the other marriages. - Eileen R 161.184.107.221 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! This article was in terrible shape when I first read it, and now is reading like something of a respectable biography. Junggai (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Still some way to go, but we're certainly getting there! - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit May 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few thing came to light that may need attention:

Aachen, Teplice, Karlsbad, Troppau and Laibach

• "prompted Eleonore and the children to move to Francis shortly after" (para3) - To Francis or to France?

General

• Large amounts of "however" used throughout the text. Perhaps use other wording?
• The lead is too short for such a large article - three or four paragraphs are appropriate.

A very good article, well written and informative. It is a little heavy going, perhaps some of the paragraphs could be split into smaller ones?

I would definitely consider putting it up for a GA nomination, if not FA? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Klemens von Metternich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've so far checked the history of and discussions about the article and, as it seems to be stable at present, I'm happy to review it. Metternich is a historical figure I've always found interesting. Given the size of the article, it will take time and I may decide to present interim reports on selected sections. --Mykleavens (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial report

I was about to fail the article immediately after first reading it on 4/5 June but, by the time I had written up my report, Jarry1250 started revising the lead which was then the weak point of the article and my main cause for concern. I decided to set the review aside for the time being until the new work had been completed and intended to read the article again yesterday (11 June) but a further set of inputs were being made.

I will say here that I expect the lead to be a well-written summary of the whole article, especially given its great length. Among the topics I expect to see, in both lead and article, are:

• Studied at Strasbourg and Mainz before being attached to the embassy at The Hague
• Austrian ambassador/minister at Dresden, Berlin and Paris
• Treaty of Fontainebleau
• Appointment as foreign minister
• Involvement in Bonaparte's marriage to Marie Louise
• Declaration of war against France
• Grand Alliance
• Ennoblement
• Congress of Vienna
• Politics of the German Confederation
• Austrian interests in Italy
• Arguably the key figure in European politics after 1815
• Discuss his politics, essentially reactionary and autocratic; and how this led in time to the 1848 revolutions throughout Europe
• Flight to England
• Eventual retirement and death
• Summary of personal life and family

Prior to recent updates the article was not well-written and contained what I consider to be unnecessary verbiage, some of it apparently copied direct from the sort of text book whose author delights in throwing the dictionary at his readers. A maxim here is to keep language simple so that the article flows and the reader does not have to stop every couple of sentences to ask "what does this mean?" I also spotted examples of terminology that would fail WP:WTW.

I haven't read the article again since the recent revisions began and will place the review on hold for the time being to allow the work to continue. --Mykleavens (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Any changes now made will be to expand/diversify the source base. They should involve few, if any, changes to content. I would be happy to address any WTW to may find and/or specific terminology you should should be avoided. In essence, I am happy for you to commence a fuller review.

As for the lead, if I condense your list slightly and strike the issues (I feel) are already adequately covered: Studied at Strasbourg and Mainz before being attached to the embassy at The Hague; Austrian ambassador/minister at Dresden, Berlin and Paris; Treaty of Fontainebleau; Appointment as foreign minister; Involvement in Bonaparte's marriage to Marie Louise< Declaration of war against France; Grand Alliance; Ennoblement; Congress of Vienna; Politics of the German Confederation; Austrian interests in Italy; Arguably the key figure in European politics after 1815; Discuss his politics, essentially reactionary and autocratic; and how this led in time to the 1848 revolutions throughout Europe; Flight to England; Eventual retirement and death; Summary of personal life and family.

So if we take the un-struck points, there are a few things I will add. "Grand Alliance" I'm not sure about. If you mean the Holy Alliance then yes, I should probably add that. "Led in time to the 1848 revolutions" I'm plain not sure about - sourced views seem thin on the ground on that issue. But a few things I can add, certainly. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Added and struck some more. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Added and struck some more (finished). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article criteria

The article fails the GA review for the following reasons based on the GA criteria. It has been nominated too soon having not been properly copyedited and with the scope still undefined. The main problem is its length. It needs to be converted into a true summary of the major topics I outlined above with child articles created per most if not all of these key topics. I would advise that you follow the example of Winston Churchill and others that have been approached in this way. The relevant GA criteria are:

well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise – – frankly, no; it has not been subjected to a rigid copyedit and it needs this to be done before being nominated

(b) the spelling and grammar are correct – – as per the above; a rigid copyedit is needed to address numerous minor errors

(c) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for:

• lead sections – – the lead is heading in the right direction subject to a copyedit but I must repeat what I said above about the article being nominated before it was anywhere near ready; it still contains too many minor errors
• words to watch – – again, a rigid copyedit will weed out suspect words or phrases

broad in its coverage:

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail – – the article is far too long and should be split into a number of articles that cover several topics with this one presenting an effective summary of the whole subject

(c) it uses a summary style – – following on from (b), it is not a summary

stable – – no, it is not stable in that it was nominated before being ready and a lot of work has been done and is continuing to be done which effectively prevents a thorough review

I regret, therefore, that I must fail the article for GA. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry that you felt that these were not issue that could be fixed within the confines of a "hold" period. Nonetheless, I'm sure we can draw up a list of edits to make.

I agree about the quality of prose in places; I shall nominate it for a "professional" copyedit (again). Any help fixing the "numerous minor errors" would be helpful on the spelling./grammar front; I will go over it again myself soon. Ditto "words to watch".

Do you mean to say that the lead section contains errors? Could you be more specific?

I disagree about the article being too long. It is certainly on the lengthy side, and I would not expect readers to read through all of it in one go. However, there is simply no clear way to divide the article in such a way that it can be summarised without removing important contextual details relevant to other sections. In short, I believe that the article is not long because of unnecessary details, but because of the sheer length of his career. I am prepared to argue this in an RfC if you would like to write a description of why you feel the article should be split.

For "summary style", I assume you contend that the article goes into "unnecessary detail". Could you be more specific? I don't necessarily disagree, I just can't see the wood for the trees.

Lastly, I disagree with your interpretation of the "stable" criterion. It is described not as whether there are content changes ongoing (which there virtually always are), but whether there are edit wars and/.or content disputes, neither of which is the case here.

Nonetheless, I look forward to working with you over the other issues. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am also insulted that the copyedit I did is considered not "rigid" enough.

Please supply examples of where this occurs Mykleavens. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I assumed (and still do) that they were added by my post-CE edits, Chaosdruid. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 08:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

It seems that this article is a vessel for proponents of liberal ideas to attack conservative ideas. Don't we have enough of those on Wikipedia already? --24.185.64.42 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please can you expand more to include some examples of why you are saying this? Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Klemens von Metternich/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I plan on reviewing this article within the coming week. DCItalk 00:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I will have many comments, I am more than willing to complete corrections myself, in case you're busy this week. DCItalk 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Lead.
  • The opening sentence is quite long, but I am not sure we can do much about it.
  • I'm not sure about opening a sentence with "Soon after, however, he would be the foreign minister..."  Done
  • Change "at home" to "at this time".  Not done Clarified what I mean
• Early life
  • Is the first name necessary?
    • Surely the alternative is "Metternich was born into the House of Metternich" ? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • He was the eldest son of the couple, having one elder sister"...could you change to but had one other sister?  Not done but clarified
  • The statement about swimming and horse-riding seems out of place in this sentence. Perhaps you could say something to the effect that his education included athletic activities, as well.  Done
  • The second paragraph in this section contains a few sentences that need grammar checking and also a quick check to make sure they don't incorporate too many clauses. I do not understand the last sentence, about looking "at east," unless it's supposed to be "at ease." Done
  • Please include the name of the French minister interrogated by Metternich. If you can, also include the names of the legislators. Was this, by any chance, the French turncoat Dumoriez?
    • It wasn't actually; it was a party sent to arrest him. The source does not name the Minister of War but it was non-contentiously Pierre de Ruel, marquis de Beurnonville, so I've added that in. How many commissioners accompanied him does for some reason look contentious; the French Wikipedia names four! - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Marriage and the Congress of Rastatt.
  • Many of the most influential... This sounds wordy. Why not change it to "influential British politicians?"  Done
• Ambassador
• Dresden and Berlin
  • What does the word "retiring" mean in this context? Was Frederick Augustus of Saxony withdrawn from the affairs of state? Including a more detailed word or explanation might clarify this.  Done
• Foreign Minister
• Detente with France
  • I'm not wild about this sentence: After returning to Austria Metternich witnessed Austria's defeat...  Done
  • When Napoleon was also asking after..." Is there a better way to word this?  Done
• Congress of Vienna
  • Check for minor errors (e.g., aid instead of the correct aide). Done
• Aachen, Teplice, etc.
  • Is this the best section name?
    • Meh, I'm not overly keen on it but it's designed to fit with the others without omission. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • captured by the allure of... Not sure about this wording.  Done
• Remaining sections
  • Although the article meets GA criteria, as explained below, I may add more comments here within the next few days to assist in making general corrections.

My major concern

My major concern is the first paragraph of Historical assessment. I understand that the comments in this paragraph are supposed to be from the point of view of an unfavourable historian, but unquoted phrases describing a "pointless" struggle and "a more enlightened chancellor" do not sound acceptable here on Wikipedia.

General comments/concerns

• Section headers eventually become quite small and a little hard to differentiate between. I understand this is necessary given the additional level-two sections at the bottom, but it's just something I noticed.
• There are more than a few redlinks in the page. Again, they're probably necessary, but it detracts from the overall appearance.
• Sourcing is excellent.

GA checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article is well-written and, with the exception of the errors outlined above, is ready to be listed as GA. In order to make A-class or FA, corrections will need to be made around the article, again as listed above, but I am ready to pass this as soon as my major concern is addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article's prose is quite good, but there are a few things that ought to be revised a little.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I cannot pass the article until I receive feedback or see corrections on Historical assessment.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am impressed with this article, and am happy to pass it for GA. DCItalk 21:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

sentence in lead

The lead contains this sentence:

"His decision to oppose Russian imperialism is also seen as a good one."

By whom? For what reasons?

I think this sentence needs to be removed but would like to solicit opinion on it.

The next sentence - "His detractors describe him as a bore who stuck to ill-thought out conservative principles only out of vanity and a sense of infallibility." - is hardly any better, sounding like an editorial. Any thoughts on it? Bazuz (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Minister and successor state?

serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire,

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

of course it was it main successor state since it was the emperors "Hausmacht". According to the "translatio imperii" the imperial honor, Franz II had, couldnt be taken from him and he was the founder of the Austrian Empire, so the imperial honor got transferred to Austria....thats not a matter of region but of imperial honor. Austria was "the" mainpower within the HRE for centuries, so you can call it a successor state. The German Empire the Prussians created in 1871 on the other hand had nothing to do with the HRE. Eromae (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

German politician

The word "german" could be misunderstood here. He was not politician in or of Germany, he was politician in the Holy Roman Empire and in the Empire of Austria. Since "german" was even linked to the article of nowadays federal republic of germany, I deleted the link and the whole word - it could be misunderstood. he was a politician who worked for the house of habsburg: so he worked for austria and during the time, the habsburgs were roman emperors he worked for them in the Holy Roman Emperor. This has nothing to do with nowadays germany. I think "was a politician and statesman of Rhenish extraction and one of the most important diplomats of his era, serving as the Foreign Minister of the Holy Roman Empire and its successor state, the Austrian Empire," is a good and more correct sentnce. Eromae (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Germany did NOT exist before 1870. There was a region called Germany prior to that, and it included Austria. He spoke German not Hapsburg, and thus he was a German statesman.Ericl (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Photo please

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

Lack of citations in lead

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

Reaction to Castlereagh's suicide

This page kind of quickly skims over Metternich's reaction to his death. I bring this up because I was personally curious about it, and found a brief mention in Metternich by Sandeman (pg 185):

"Early in the autumn of 1822 Castlereagh committed suicide, so that all hope of his attendance at the coming Congress was ended. Metternich was much distressed. Castlereagh had in many ways agreed with his views and had often proved a good ally, especially in regard to the Eastern Question. 'He had learnt to understand me,' wrote Metternich, 'it will be years before another reaches the same stage of confidence.'"

I think it might be worth including maybe one line of text that it was personally distressing to him. Delukiel (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)