Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:17, 4 December 2005

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)

Archives

• Adolf or Adolph
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 1
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 3
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 4
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 5
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 6
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 7
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 8
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 9
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 10
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 11
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 12
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 13

"Charismatic leadership" or "Charismatic authority"

User:64.12.116.201 is constantly changing "Under Hitler's leadership..." to "Under Hitler's charismatic leadership..." despite being reverted. This smells slightly of POV, but I also don't think "charismatic leadership" should have its own article. — JIP | Talk 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Having read charismatic authority, I retract the latter part of my comment, and stand solely by the POV comment. — JIP | Talk 12:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article does not assert charismatic authority, which has a specialized, socio-political definition. The common dictionary definition holds for use of the term charismatic in the article. Wyss 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the adjective is wikified as charismatic leadership which redirs to charismatic authority. Re-reading that, I think the latter article may have some wording problems itself.

I'm neutral. AH was charismatic (he swayed the German establishment, then a nation into institutional crime and atrocity of almost perplexing scale, never mind at least two women committed suicide as a result of their relationships with him). I think some readers mistakenly interpret charismatic as a positive attribute or sympathetic commentary. AH as much as anyone suggests that charisma, like so many other human qualities, is in itself but a characteristic... what one does with one's talents is ultimately much more important. Wyss 13:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

After pondering this a bit I think it's helpful, historically supported and instructive to use the term charismatic in the context of that sentence. Wyss 15:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. Charismatic seems appropriate here. DJ Clayworth 13:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. I'm not sure why you keep reverting this simple edit -- it is not POV in ANY way, but the plain and glaringly obvious truth. This man used his personal magnetism and charismatic authority to lead a nation (and Europe) to its doom. Other Nazi leaders used propaganda to transform this Austrian racist in to a mythical, godlike figure -- and from personally reading dozens of personal accounts over the years, he really was by all means intensely charismatic, and this was the basis of his authority (hence the reverts to charismatic leadership). Just ask any historian, sociologist, etc. -- WWII Nazis all called Hitler "The Saviour of Germany," like some modern-day Christ figure; or watch Triumph des Willens for yourself and find out; it isn't hard to spot there...everyday people need to be made fully aware that people like this exist and can naturally use their charisma to positively or negatively manipulate and sway the masses of "sheep." And the above User:Wyss is correct; charisma isn't ALWAYS a positive character trait like you seem to think User:JIP...some who have it (Hitler) used it to exploit others, make tons of money, wield negative power, dominate/oppress, etc., while others used it for positive social change and other worthy causes (Gandhi). Go and read the base article on Charisma and then let us know what you think here. --152.163.100.5 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep...there's nothing POV about that pithy statement; he was a charismatic maniac! He chose to use a profound gift in a terrible, terrible way...shame on him. Berlin Stark 20:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Alan Bullock in his biography of both Stalin and Hitler, Stalin missed the charisma of Hitler, (page 404 if I remember it well). Andries 21:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete...it is true that AH had charisma and his leadership can be described as charismatic, but in the context of this sentence I think it's out of the way and superfluous. We can still include it at another place. Str1977 21:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Put it somewhere else and explain that it is a theory. --Ezeu 23:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be unsuperfluous somewhere else? Why is it a theory? Wyss 02:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. The FACT that Hitler's leadership was very charismatic is VITALLY IMPORTANT to his ability to take over Germany, defy the Versailles Treaty and get away with it, and push anti-Semitism onto a people to such a degree that it is legally enforced, taught in schools, and millions of murders are commited for it. Mein Kampf is horribly written. It is dry, boring, asinine, and unreadable, but it says the SAME THING as his speeches. The difference was his charisma, which doesn't, of course, come out in print. It is in no way synonymous with "he was a good leader" or "what he did was right." If you still have problems with assigning any connotatively positive attitudes with H17LER DA KILL3R OF DA JOOz OMG then watch a video of one of his speeches on the internet. It doesn't matter what he says: the style is grand, he says what the people want to hear, and everyone cheers their head off. Hitler's subjects found him very charismatic. It is a FACT and not in any way anyone's point of view in any manner. 'Charismatic leadership' was the best way of saying it, makes the most sense, and is accurate, factual, and 100% related to Hitler as a dictator and to this article. Definitely keep the charisma in. I can agree that it might not be the best spot for it. But for the love of god the article is like 20 pages. The person who added it was too lazy to read the whole thing and I understand the sentiment. If you don't want the charisma there, read through the article and find a better spot if you want, or close your eyes and pick a place at random if you prefer, but it's definitely necessary somewhere. --68.148.168.84 03:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Referring to his charismatic authority should stay at the beginning of the article because it was so incredibly vital to his leadership and personality; that's where the most important stuff goes. 205.188.116.5 10:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

KEEP: there is film footage of Hitler speaking from a podium at a rally, which shows a crowd of screaming teenage girls bursting through a cordon to acclaim him - it predates the Beatles hype by 25 years. "Charismatic" is a keep, but should go along with "media manipulation" and "grow up!". I am grumpy, but not old.--shtove 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• And you are sure it isnt a Leni Riefenstahl Films Inc. production? --Ezeu 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. The footage is staged but compelling, and Leni (or whoever) gives a masterclass in how to sell a politician to a shrugging electorate. We could all do with much much more of the same, couldn't we? BTW: This article has the longest list of foreign language counterparts that I've seen on W'pedia. Why are we all so interested?--shtove 01:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are we all so interested? Because Hitler masterminded and inspired the most destructive war and despicable genocide in the whole of human history, and ALL humans are fascinated (drawn towards yet also repulsed) by the ultra-dark side of humanity; this much is a fact. War (especially on the scale of WWII) is about as dark as you can get. Plus, it was relatively recently that the Holocaust and WWII happened, so the memories are still quite fresh in the wounded collective unconscious of the West, not to mention that many WWII-vets are still alive along with CC-camp survivors, ex-Nazis, etc. I don't care how "cultured" or "refined" you are or claim to be...Hitler's power and darkness will really make you think and his destructive "charisma" still holds sway today around the globe. WWII shaped the modern World as we know it today more than anything else that I can think of. Just imagine the scars that the Germans still hold, the guilt and shame. I’ve always believed that if a person wants to try and understand the 20th Century in the West he/she better try and understand German culture and Germany’s history. Thus, Hitler and his twisted legacy unfortunately lives on and will for a VERY long time to come. --Berlin Stark 07:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be cultured or refined. Why aren't we as interested in Stalin, who (by body count/ideology) was more deadly/influential than Hitler? And I think European inventions of the last 200 years have had more influence on modern life than any war.--shtove 12:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In the long run Stalin was more deadly than Hitler.... But only in the long run... If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR, what was the destiny of the Slavs in Hitler's mind and how great was their courage during the war. There are some reasons to think that they found Stalin's dictatorship very mild in comparison... More serioulsly "Uncle Adolf" wasn't only the worse criminals of all times... He was was also self-destructive and worse of of all he wished to bring all Germany in his self-destructive project...

You wrote << "If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR,..." >> Oh I know the cost as I have studied Operation Barbarossa with some intensity for quite a while. Estimates range as high as 30 million! That's no joke! But of course the flu-pandemic of 1918-19 killed around 50 million, which is the same amount that was said to die in all of WWII; it's all really hard to follow with all of these "estimates" floating about. 152.15.100.163 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What else ? It scares me to the bones. Beuark... Ericd 21:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No doubting the courage of Russian resistance to Barbarossa, but why didn't the same people have the courage to see what Stalin was about? The people of western Ukraine know all about the long run, because at one point a large proportion found themselves dead at Stalin's command. If you say,"comparatively mild" then you must be mad. As for the interest in Hitler, I guess it is partly generated by the soap opera aspects of both his life and the rise of the National Socialist party. Ancient Greek drama and Christianity are far more instructive than history in fathoming human depravity.--shtove 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I may be mad.... Soap opera ? Soap ? Well wash your face and look in the mirror. Experiencing a modern firearm shot is far more instructive than anything else in understanding human nature... Ericd 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It may depend on which end of the gun you're looking at, but gunpowder explodes and that's it - no mystery. Apologies for the "mad" query. The "soap opera" description relates to aspects such as the Geli Raubel relationship, the bad art, vegeterianism, drug taking, the jolly sympathy with children, the fatal attraction over women, the marriage to Eva Braun, etc -the kind that inflame vulgar fantasies. The question stands: why the blanket interest in Hitler, when Stalin merits as much, if not more? Isn't it a pretence to insist that the Hitler obsession has anything to do with moral reflection and lesson-learning?--shtove 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete I think there should be part of the article or even a whole section devoted to whether or not Hitler was charismatic, I just don't think it should be added here, it seems inappropriate and although I don't think people here have malicious motives I do think it is possible to be construed as POV. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete agree in everything with Moshe. Andries 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, replace with mesmerizing . Charismatic would be tolerable if we were journalists reporting him speaking , but charismatic in hindsight is poor use as it retains a positive quality that the sane world does not accord . It is therefore a poor use of English (unless the intention is to so accord the positive) .EffK 10:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I will re-introduce the statement about Hitler's charisma or charismatic leadership somewhere in the article as an attributed opinion something like

"Several historians and psychologists have asserted that Hitler possessed charisma or that his leadership was charismatic. "

References, Ian Kershaw, Allan Bullock in Parallel lives, psychologist Len Oakes in Prophetic Charisma. Andries 11:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The "charisma" has a part in the article, but right now it is misplaced in the opening paragraph or rather phrased in too short a manner. In any case, the "charisma" deserves a sentence of its own, explaining that AH made use of his charisma in speeches etc. as part of his regime. Str1977 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: the problem isn't so much the meaning of the term itself, but its placement in the article and its connotation. If we want a reference in the introduction to Hitler's personal charisma, it would be clearer to say that he was a gifted orator (if that's specifically what we are referring to.) As it is, we have a poorly explained reference which links to an article on a theory by Weber, which just doesn't belong in the introduction. To boot, a good proportion of readers will take this as an endorsement of Hitler, again because the meaning is overly vague. It's a mess. Moshe is correct that this needs to be moved. Blowfish 20:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. All the DELETE votes betray an anxiety about describing Hitler for the man he was. Charisma was one of his clear qualities, and the use of the term in this article is accurate.--shtove 20:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: He was charismatic by all accounts.24.141.217.93 22:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Anyone who wants to eliminate the "charisma" lines either doesn't understand "charisma" or rightly wants clarified context- mention does need to be made that his power came from his charisma (if it isn't) and this needs to clearly lead into his "charismatic leadership". There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION as to whether or not his leadership came from his charisma- everyone in the world at the time saw his ability as an orator and propaganda centerpiece. Seperating Hitler from his charismatic powers would be like trying to cover (not trying to make any associations here) Mother Theresa or Ghandi without mentioning religion. It's not only signifigant, it's absolutely inseperable.

STRONG KEEP: Blowfish - This has absolutely nothing to do with connotation. This is not a childrens book. The WikiCommunity should be interested only in denotation and as it has already been clearly stated the denotation of charismatic pinpoints AH's quality. Charisma is only subjective when there is doubt, however in this case there is none. AH could not have delivered so much destruction and that pace without convincing the public that it was justified. It was his presence and passionate oratory. That sold evil. Find me one academic historian who would not explain Hitler's charismatic nature as one of the top reasons he was near-universally accepted in Germany. Explaining it in any other way is concealing the truth. The truth that is accepted by all who value it.User:Mask 17:36 30 November 2005

MUST KEEP: W'pedia shouldn't be dumbing down things so they're palatable to the average person. "Charisma" has a very specific (not vague), value-nuetral definition that applies nowhere if it can't be applied to Hitler. Charisma isn't the ability to be popular-anyone can jump in front of a parade-its a leader's ability to make people want to changes their lives to live according to the leader's vision. George Washington, JFK and Reagan were popular. Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Marx, Gandi, and unfortunately Hitler where charismatic.66.189.168.107 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Born with his name" ?

In the 10th bullet under the "Trivia" section, I think that phrase should be changed to "given his name at birth" to show that very few babies are actually born with name tags. StuRat 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

'IMDb' in the first trivia entry should be a link to the article.

Bizarre trivia

I have a very conflicting piece of trivia I gained from various documentaries and books that I want to verify. On Hitler's desk there is a picture of:

• only Mussolini
• only Henry Ford
• only his mother
• none, he disliked having pictures in his office

Excommunication

My thoughts about the papacy, the popes and the history of the Roman Catholic Church aside: As Pope Benedict XVI has made public good will gestures towards the Jewish People (among other faiths) would it be a sign of ultimate atonement for him to excommunicate Hitler from the Catholic Church? Is it possible for him to excommunicate a dead person? --RPlunk 17:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RPlunk, no one can be excommunicated post mortem. However, the Church can declare that someone dead had incurred excommunication while alive (there are action that will get oneself automatically excommunicated). In regard to living persons, excommunication is pronounced primarily for the benefit of the excommunicated, to indicate to him the wrongness of his ways and make him repent and turn back. (Of course this only works, if the person in question is touched by such a move - in regard to earthly rulers it worked with Emperor Henry IV, but not with Elizabeth of England or Napoleon. It would have worked less with Hitler.) The secondary reason is the benefit of other people, to warn them not to take someone as an example or to head his teaching (the latter in regard to theologians). In the case of someone dead, the primary reason falls away, since a dead person cannot repent and turn back. The secondary reason is still valid, but the question is whether this should be done - is anyone seriously in doubt about the relation between Hitler and Christianity. If so, education is needed and such a declaration of excommunication might play a role in that. But I doubt that this is the case. A mere symbolic excommunication (which I guess you mean by atonement) I don't right. Str1977 21:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Excommunication does not need to be declared by the church. AFAICS Hitler fell to a by acting in an apostatic way. This can be discussed, but anyhow, as Str1977 wrote: since Hitler is dead, there is no neccesity (and no possibility) to excommunicate him, because he can not change his acting anymore. And even Pope Benedict can not excommunicate a dead person. --mmg 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmg, thanks for your further clarification. That's what I meant by "the Church can declare that someone dead had incurred excommunication while alive (there are action that will get oneself automatically excommunicated)" and I guess apostasy is only the tip of the ice-berg of things that will automatically excommunicate someone - but I agree that Hitler is guilty of that (and many other things - he surely scores 7 out of 7). Str1977 18:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A neutral photograph of Hitler's face

Why not include a photograph of Hitler like the following into the Misplaced Pages introduction ? http://www.2worldwar2.com/adolf-hitler.htm The picture is free and shows Hitler's face as it looked during his dictatorship. No uniform is seen, no heroic gesture or expression is presented. So we just look into the face of Adolf Hitler. And since Hitler looked into the camera, we can look into his eyes. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (21112005) PS: As soon as the current version of the Misplaced Pages article on Hitler is editable, I will do two things: 1st) Remove the current Hitler propaganda picture; 2nd) Delete the entry "Cult figures" from the categories section.

Dear Hans, I think the current photo, the one you call propaganda, is better. Yes, it is an official photo and yes, it is aimed at portraying AH in a certain way, but this photo can also help to include into this article this way of "self-potrayal" or self-image. I don't think it's right to insist on AH looking bad on photos. There are other photos included to counter this and the article's text also should be more than enough to dispell any admiration for the man, except for those already lost. As for the "cult figure" category, I agree - the problem is not, that AH is not a cult figure for some people (not only Nazis), but I think the category is nonsensical - when properly applied it'd make a very big category. Str1977 20:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as the Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, that long it will not serve for propaganda. What you say is just this: "I think the current photo, the one you call propaganda, is better." -- Can you give only one reason for your claim that: A propaganda foto is better than a foto of neutral origigin and purpose (Zweck) ? So: Why do you not think is my above suggestion not an appropriate one ? To present a picture (a photograph) of Adolf Hitler that is neutral ? Do you Str1977 have any problem with this ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (21112005)

The photo might be first taken for the purpose of propaganda, but that doesn't make any less neutral. I preferred it since it is a) of a better quality and b) giving more information than just how he looked. BTW, what about the propaganda photo over at Stalin? Don't read anything into my comments. Also, it would have been better if you had sought consensus for your pic before changing it. Str1977 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hans, I think the photo you found here could be a suitable replacement if you can find a version of it that is high resolution (at least 600x600 pixels) and is not so poorly cropped (his head does not fit in the frame properly). —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-22 00:19:05Z

I think the photo we have (and have had for a long time) is fine. I don't find it non-neutral or anything. Keep it. Shanes 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is what makes you wonder about Hitler photographs -- (I mean: that some picture has not a high resolution -- Well, then you are still playing in your sandbox. And you are a Hitler fan. So easy to say, so easy to prove. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Your constant attempts at condescension and vandalism, Hans, have convinced me that you do not have good intentions with respect to this article, and so I see no point in continuing to debate it with you. I welcome further discussion if you decide at some point that you are capable of conversing constructively. Sorry to have wasted your time. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-22 01:41:32Z

Mr Rosenthal, may I ask you

• to desist from personal attack on any editor of this page.
• to desist from reverting and reverting before having a consensus.
• not to treat other people's arguments some dismissively. Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself. Take others seriously, if you want to be taken seriously.
• to assume good faith.
• to finally register and get a user name. I know you are free to remain on an IP-basis but this would help your position around here considerably.

Good night, Str1977 01:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When I, a lecturer of political science in germany, recently saw the Hitler photo on top of this page, I immediately thought that it looked like a propaganda photo - and it WAS a propaganda photo during the Third Reich for sure- , so why don't you choose a photo more, say, neutral ?

It looks great. Leave it alone. --Phroziac _. o º 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that Phroziac also found it looking great to watch the WTC jumpers falling down to the ground on 11 September 2001. Not so ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

ROHA, yo sure's a polititian. Where's you standing for office? The way you put down anyone who opposes you, pure talent. I guess next you'll call us nazis who do not agree with you. Wish I had your genius --Ezeu 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

All I do is to call those big kids, who do not understand or accept that the current photograph of Adolf Hitler served in the past and serves today as simple nazi propaganda. No more and no less. But Misplaced Pages is not the right place for propaganda, neither now nor in the future, is it ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005) PS: I admit that many of the younger contributors do not have an idea of what nazi propaganda meant in history, so they may have problems to understand what it means today.

I hope you don't seriously think that a simple photograph will portray Hitler in a "propaganda" light? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 06:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this picture is better than a plain straight shot of his face since it gives you a feeling of just how (for lack of a better term) creepy this guy was, and how he manipulated his image to achieve his goals. That said, I think this picture may show that too subtly, there could be a better picture out there to use that shows more of his propaganda talents (say a poster or leaflette or something) and would make the point more forcefully.BoomBox 18:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"...many of the younger contributors do not have an idea of what nazi propaganda meant in history, so they may have problems to understand what it means today." I should hope that anyone contributing to any article on Misplaced Pages would be aware of the subject matter. It is therefore safe to say that anyone participating in this discussion in particular, has an idea as to the uses and impact of Nazi propaganda, regardless of their age. --Grim13

Clarification on Schicklgruber name

From "Early Years":

Alois Hitler was born out of wedlock and used his mother's surname, Schicklgruber, until he was 40. In 1876, he began using the name of his stepfather, Johann Georg Hiedler, after visiting a priest responsible for birth registries and declaring that Georg was his father...

This doesn't make sense to me. He was born in 1889, used Schicklgruber until he was 40, but began using "Hiedler" in 1876? These numbers don't add up. Can someone clarify? 71.139.49.248 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Alois Hitler was born in 1837, not 1889. Shanes 04:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

the SS complex

I would put this part of the article much more general. SS and Gestapo were not the only state organizations which built up the suppression system. It was the whole security group. IHMO the list looks like this:

• Reichssicherheitshauptamt as the head organisation which managed all police services and intelligence services
• The Gestapo as the german secret police
• The SS as the main terror instrument and its intelligence service SD
• The SA with shrinking influnce

In my eyes there are numerous other organisations which supported that terror system but these are the main ones.

--mac_c 12:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mac c, can you go ahead and propose what the edit should look like and I'll think about putting it in? --Nlu 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

PoV

"He unleashed World War II and carried on the systematic disfranchisement and murder of at least 11 million people" - someone can remove this PoV. I can't do it myself because this article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.19.130 (talk • contribs)

Will do. --Nlu 16:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone, please, replace the leading propaganda photo of Hitler by a neutral one ? I can't do it myself because this article is protected. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (24112005)

Mr Rosenthal, you know perfectly well why this page was protected, don't you? Str1977 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can make a reasonable argument (rather than simple assertion) why it is propaganda and why, despite the fact that any propaganda is necessarily historical by now and would have no actual propaganda effect, please do make that argument. I'll consider it after you make an argument. However, assertion is not argument, nor does it help your argument that you unilaterally delete the image without making any arguments. --Nlu 18:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What was PoV about that sentence? I think it sounded good in the intro. Gilliamjf 04:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The POV part (presumably) was that it was Hitler who led to the "systematic disfranchisement and murder of at least 11 million people," where the cause and effect is disputable. There's no dispute that Hitler committed huge atrocities that led to the death of millions of people, but attributing to him the entire death toll is at least mildly POV. Please see my revision and see what you think. --Nlu 04:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I don't like it. Jews were not the only victims. --Yooden

How does this revision sound? - of approximately 6 million European Jews as well as other ethnic, religious, and political groups in what is now known as the Holocaust. Gilliamjf 19:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Much better. I don't care that much for the exact wording (your's is fine though), but the others shouldn't be left out. Thanks! ---Yooden

Modified. Please see if this looks OK. --Nlu 22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The "His and his regime's policies" part does not sound too nice. Sorry, can't name an alternative. Thanks anyway for including the non-Jews. --Yooden

NSDAP

I don't think the change done by HorsePunchKid lately is a good one. Names are usually given in their original with a translation. Also, NSDAP is no abbreviation of National Socialist German Workers Party, but only of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Here is my proposal: "He was leader of the short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party" Yes, it's long, but so is the name in the first place. --Yooden

The word "Nazi" was first used by the Anglo-American press as a disparaging nickname, in the same manner that they referred to "Japs". Perhaps, better known in the U.S. as the Nazi party, but in modern Germany, the Nazi regime is known as the NS-Regime. Gilliamjf 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspected that the phrase wasn't contemporary in Germany, I think it should be noted as such. Today the term is very common in Germany, NS-Regime would be pretty formal. Since this is a slang expression anyway, I propose to leave it out in the introduction and spend some more words in a latter paragraph. (I think Brits used 'Huns'?) --Yooden

How about "commonly referred to as the Nazi party" Gilliamjf 22:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see how I've worded it and see what you think. --Nlu 22:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, this is bad. As Anonymous said, NS is seldom used, and always in compounds, Nazi is much more common. --Yooden

Oops, that's probably Str1977, not Anonymous. Sorry. --Yooden

My main problem with User:69.151.183.180's edit was that it was blatanly ungrammatical. After thinking about rewording it, I decided that leaving it up to the link to define the term was sufficient. Regardless, the current version looks fine to me! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-25 23:10:04Z

I'm not happy with the current version (Nlu at 22:34). In German "NS" is only used as part of a compound, "der NS-Staat" or "NS-Verbrechen". I have never heard "NS-Partei", but "Nazi-Partei" or "Nationalsozialisten" or simply "Nazis" are common. Also I can't think right now of a NS-compounds that can't be worded as Nazi-compunds - however, Nazi sounds more polemical, while NS- seems more neutral.

As for the origin, I think, it was coined in German politics as a parallel term to "Sozi", which is short for Social Democrat. "Huns" stem from a speech by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1900. Str1977 23:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Details: Sozi would probably also have meant socialist, not only social democrat. The Kaiser did not invent the racial slur; my question would have been whether Nazi was used by the USians while the Brits used Huns. --Yooden

Yooden,

originally in the 19th century the terms "Sozialistisch", "Sozialdemokratisch" and even "Kommunistisch" were synonyms. The SPD for some time was called "Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei" before the settled with "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands". And the SPD-people were nicknamed "Sozi(s)" (or more vulgar "Soze(n)"). For a long time, they could still be called Socialist or Socialdemocrat (and other Socialist parties were minute and short-lived) and only the confrontation with non-democratic Socialism a.k.a. Communism made the inclusion of "-democratic" essential. But still, the famous SPD Godesberg party platform of 1959 has the term "democratic Socialism", though this programme was the SPD's farewell to Marxist ideology.

As for the "Huns" - when Wilhelm gave his speech "Huns" was no racial slur but the name of an ancient people noted for striking fear into their opponents. Wilhelm said that putting down the Boxer Rebellion would earn the German military the same reputation in the eyes of the Chinese. This speech was so over the top, even for Wilhelm's standards, ("Prisoners are not to be made ...") that the public was shocked about it and when World War I arrived and reports about German atrocities (whether true or false has no bearing on that) spread, the English remembered and thought: "Well, they said it 14 years ago that they are like the Huns". Hence, the name stuck.

Regarding "Nazi" vs. "Hun" - IMHO, Nazi is more politically oriented while Hun is an "old-style" racial slur. The Americans were hardly involved in WWI (when the term "Hun" became popular) and ince anti-German sentiment was not as deep or wide-spread as in Britain, they, I guess, adopted the more political epithet "Nazi", making the war a conclict of ideas (which it was to some extent) - Emigrants might have played a role with that as well. That didn't stop the British from using "Nazi" as well, but only alongside of the by then rooted "Hun".

Str1977 10:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation! --Yooden

You're surely welcome. But keep in mind that my comments on the Hun-Nazi-issue are merely educated guesses. I could be completely wrong. Str1977 10:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I think that there has been a sufficient protection to hopefully let things cool down. Would there be any objection to unprotecting the article? If not, I will unblock the article about 22:00 UTC today. --Nlu 22:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Verfassungsschutz

The Verfassungsschutz is not a single oganization, there is a federal office (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) and several Länder offices (see Verfassungsschutz). My proposal for Legacy: "(...) political extremists are generally under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz, one of the federal or state-based offices for the protection of the constitution."

Edits

Hello friends of history:

I propose that the "References" section be replaced by the "Further reading" section and the use of the List of Adolf Hitler books. The References section was getting to long and it was unsorted. In addition, how do we know what books were actually used to create the Adolf Hitler article? I would be obliged if you added book titles and help turn the List of Adolf Hitler books into an Annotated Bibliography by writing articles that review the books and authors and linking them to the books. Some of the books and authors have already been linked as the articles have been previously written.

In addition, I have added a "Speeches" section, List of Adolf Hitler speeches lots of speeches still to be added. I hope all will contribute to this historically significant project.

Thank you for your time and input.

Cordially WritersCramp 17:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a protect and then unprotect always bring out the best in the editors.  :-) --Nlu 17:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll agree with that for now, due to the strong point made that we don't know which books were used in this article. But I am a little bit divided, since the argument also applies to almost every other article in wikipedia, and since it is quite unusual to do it like this. Furthermore, I myself have for instance used Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (and others) when reviewing this article. Perhaps we should at least list the most famous references, but I don't know for now. By the way, the List of Adolf Hitler books is great! Good going, WritersCramp! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 00:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello DNA thank you for the kind words, I hope you will help by participating, lots of annotations to write and books to add :) You might want to purchase the first in the trilogy * Evans, R. (2005). The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939. Penguin Press HC. ISBN 1594200742 . Ian Kershaw believes it will replace the The Rise and Fall as the standard once the trilogy is published. Cordially WritersCramp 13:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up Suggestions

Hello Friends,

May I put forward the following suggestions for a vote/discussion:

1. Nominate this article to be featured, even if it fails, we will get suggestions from others who are unbiased, the last vote was back in July 2005.
2. "Trivia Section" I suggest we rename this section to something more Encyclopedic and then Move it to a "Main Article", replace it with a brief paragraph.
3. The "Media section" has one entry in it... can we delete it ?
4. The four small boxes aligned right at the bottom, can we align them in a row and place them after the "External Links" section, it looks poorly formatted.
5. I think generally some of these sections should be moved to "Main Articles" and then shortened to a paragraph, to make the article smaller, it is getting to long and will inevitably grow longer over time.
6. The external links section is getting to long and some of them add little value, this should be cleaned up.

Comments welcome...Cordially WritersCramp 16:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed one of the four boxes (the WikiTree link), as I felt it was inappropriate, not being part of the Misplaced Pages:Sister projects. I am against "trivia" sections; either find a way to mention it in an appropriate context or don't mention it at all. The "media" section should be kept in hopes of further expansion. The four (now three) boxes near the bottom... well, that's just sort of the standard layout, and I don't think it should be tampered with. Arranging them horizontally would probably force the page to be unnecessarily wide. The external links must be trimmed; for example, three separate links to speeches is excessive, the links to the Nazi archives is better off on the Nazi page, and so on. I agree that nominating it for FA status again would be a great way to solicit feedback. Thanks for all your work on this article so far! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-29 04:06:47Z

I agree with HorsePunchKid on all his points, except one: the trivia section. Generally, I agree with him that trivias should be incorporated into the appropriate context, but in this case I find the trivia legitimate, since it is a VERY famous person. Another thing: it is a good thing to nominate an article for peer review (see Misplaced Pages:Peer review) to get feedback on how to improve the article. This might help before making a request for FA. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 09:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reprotection

I've reprotected the article due to the failure by "ROHA" to discuss in a meaningful (or civilized) manner, and the constant shifting in IP, which I construe as sock puppetry. Please try to engage in civilized discourse. --Nlu 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And, just to be clear; I do not endorse the current image. I do, however, de-endorse (if that is a word) the conduct of "ROHA" in refusing to discuss in a meaningful/civilized manner. --Nlu 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see your point: I have given good reason why the current propaganda photo of Adolf Hitler (taken by Heinrich Hoffmann) is not acceptable within an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. If you do not read the dicussion page (and the message behind the picture), then this is your problem. All I want to say and repeat as long as anyone visits this Misplaced Pages article on Adolf Hitler is: A 💕 is not a good place for propaganda. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

You have given your reasons. Others, myself included, have responded to your reasons. You have failed to respond in any intelligible or actionable way to any of the points we've made, resorting instead to blatant personal attacks. I'll leave it up to you to go back through the talk history and pull out the specific points. To start things off, though, I'll ask you again to provide a reasonable (by criteria I have previously explicitly enumerated) alternative photo that we can all consider as a replacement for the current photo. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-01 03:11:39Z

First of all, I do not like people like "Linuxbeak" to remove my contributions from the discussion page. "Linuxbeak" seems not to have understood that on this page we discuss and do so in a free and open way. Second,

is not a propaganda photograph of Hitler. Which answers your question. Unprotect the article, and I will replace the current propaganda photo by the one above. (If you do not want to retrieve the history of this discussion, then this is your problem, which does not at all affect my argumentation.) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

Tell you what: if you agree to abide by a poll (which, according to Misplaced Pages standards, can only be participated in by registered users with sufficient edits -- which would exclude yourself, incidentally -- but which you would only have yourself to blame) as to which image is proper, I will unprotect the page after the poll is over, but not before. Alternatively, if you agree to stick to a single IP or user name so that you can be blocked for violations of 3RR, I will unprotect the page. If you are promising neither, you are in no position to demand an unprotect. --Nlu 06:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing; I've examined the history of the talk page, and it appears that your accusation against Linuxbeak removing your comments is false. I suggest that you apologize, or risk losing further credibility. --Nlu 06:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify the above comment; Linuxbeak removed one edit of yours, in which you equated another user to a terrorist. The removal is entirely appropriate. --Nlu 06:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The reasoning behind changing the portrait of Adolf Hitler provided by Mr. Rosenthal is irrelevant. I see absolutely no reason for changing the photo, as it is not in any way offensive. Adolf Hitler is not doing anything questionable in the image, and the argument that 'the photo was taken as a peice of propaganda' lacks substance. Thus, I believe the photo should not be changed, and the page continue to be protected from edits due to Mr. Rosenthal's consistent attempts to change the image without the consent of other members. --Grim13

"...without the consent of other members." -- Do you, Grim13, know the movie Twelve angry men ? It's a classical film by Reginald Rose and Sidney Lumet with Henry Fonda. It tells the story of eleven men who were convinced by one man that they were wrong. This movie is about prejudice and foolishness and is also available on DVD. I recommend it to you and others. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

Don't try to analogize your conduct here with that (fictional) juror there. First, you're hiding behind multiple IPs to elude Misplaced Pages regulations, while that juror was there, in the flesh. Second, that juror didn't equate other jurors to terrorists. Third, that juror won the others over with logical reasoning. You're doing none of these. --Nlu 06:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I also note that you are not responding to my proposals to resolve the issue. I will assume this is an implicit rejection. --Nlu 06:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I recommend the movie to others as well, including Nlu. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

When I was a wee lad of six or seven years, and knew nothing of Nazism, I chanced to walk into the room while my parents were watching Triumph of the Will. The scene was, as I recall, a bunch of Hitler Youth tossing another into the air with a large blanket. Their faces were bright, their eyes were shining, and to a young child this looked like great fun. As I remarked. My parents exchanged a glance, then sent me from the room, shut the door, and would not allow me back in until the movie was over.

At the time I thought this was strange, but soon forgot about it. It was only years later that I understood why I had been sent from the room. You can probably guess why. The film is Nazi propaganda, intended to make Nazism look appealing, and it is frighteningly good at this. The scene that had caught my fancy was clearly meant to entice the young male mind, and mine had fallen for it completely. My parents were, understandably, unsettled.

The photograph that currently leads off this article is no Triumph of the Will, to be sure, but it is of the same ilk. We see Hitler, dressed in military uniform, lit from above, his arms crossed, his face uplifted, his eyes raised: every inch the noble and glorious leader of the Fatherland. It is an excellent photograph, and that is precisely its danger. I would not be averse to using it with a caption that explains all of this, but by presenting as the first image without any kind of comment, we take part (even if we don't intend to) in the glorification of Nazism that it represents. I suspect this is why Herr Rosenthal objects to it so strongly. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's not clear, I concur with Herr Rosenthal's suggestion to use Image:Adolf_Hitler.jpg instead. Keep the propaganda in the article, by all means, but use it elsewhere, and explain it. Explain what it is, what it's meant to do, and how it does that. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote above when I commented about my protecting the article: the issue is not which photo is more appropriate; it's about how inappropriate "ROHA"'s behavior is. "ROHA" is again (by silence) refusing to submit himself under proper Misplaced Pages procedure for change or popular vote. Highly ironic for someone who is denouncing Hitler. --Nlu 07:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, ROHA's behaviour, his constant reverting without discussion (that means two way exchange) and his name calling to any opposition is unacceptable.

Secondly, I don't think the current photo problematic though it was taken for propaganda reasons. In contrast to "triumph of the will", the picture isn't very appealing nowadays, IMHO. Anyway, many pictures of rulers on WP were propaganda first (paintings certainly were), though none of these was as bad as Hitler. But propaganda is no issue there. And by the propagandistical origin the picture also gives some non-verbal information about how Hitler saw himself. Also, who is the photographer of the suggested alternative? I won't say but I think you can guess. Str1977 09:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree with Str1977. I'm not sure that it would be beneficial to supply a caption to the image outlining its role as propaganda but am under the belief that if this be done for Hitler, the same should be done for the similar image of Joseph Stalin. I still believe the image should remain on the page; Misplaced Pages serves as an educational resource, and I feel it would be wrong to shy away from a peice of world history, as grim as it may be. Illustrate why it isn't right, but do not remove it outright. As for the film "Twelve Angry Men", I have heard of it but have not seen it. I will take your advice, Mr. Rosenthal, and watch it; IMDB.com tells me it is the 21st greatest movie of all time. --Grim13

• Pardon me, but aren't almost all pictures of Hitler appropriate for use likely to have been originated as "propaganda", taken by his photographers in highly contrived situations? The picture in question depicts Hitler in a military garb — the only POV-effect I could imagine it really have on the reader is thinking that Hitler is militaristic, but that's neither really up for debate nor is it exactly what the objection is about. Personally I'm willing to wager that Image:Adolf_Hitler.jpg is "propaganda" as well. Unfortunately it is a low-resolution file and has no copyright or source information, so I don't think it's a good candidate for replacing this one, if that is/were necessary.
• I could imagine objecting over a picture which made Hitler out to be a nice man (i.e. that famous one of him giving a flower to a little girl), but I'm not sure I get the objection in the current one. In any event, civil editing behavior is necessary. The last juror did not win by trying to submit a not-guilty verdict to the judge against the will of the others. He won by talking it out until everyone, even the last hold-out, agreed with him. So let's talk. --Fastfission 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Talking outloud here because I am considering doing this: ROHA, if I unprotect the page and you violate 3RR (as you've apparently threatened to do by your words and lack of words when I offered a compromise), I am looking at your entire IP range and am getting to the point that I might block the entire range. Be careful what you're wishing for; if that happens, you, not I, will be the one responsible for any collateral damage, for your behavior. It's a thought at the moment which I am considering. I am also weighing additional options. Please choose your path wisely. --Nlu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What a lot of discussion. I'm going to admit I only skimmed it. Here's 3 things that I spotted that may or may not have needed elucidation:

• polls are evil and aren't binding anyway.
• The replacement image is public domain, and uploaded by a contributor who knows his copyright law.
• The replacement image does seem more neutral, though I don't mind either way.

Kim Bruning 06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Reunprotection

OK, after exchanging ideas with some other admins, this is what I'm going to do:

1. Later this morning Pacific Standard Time (UTC -8), I am planning on unprotecting the article.
2. Everyone, including ROHA (your IPs will be considered a single entity), will be under a strict order not to violate 3RR.
3. Violations of 3RR will result in a 24-hour block as soon as I or another administrator who knows about the situation becomes aware of the situation, with no further warnings, for at least a week. Additional violations of 3RR after the first will result in a substantially longer block. I'll consider whether to extend this self-imposed policy further. For you, ROHA, that will be a range block for your entire IP range. Again, if there's collateral damage, that's on you, not me, due to your unacceptable behavior.

Anyone who believes that I am handling this incorrectly is free to bring a request for arbitration. Be aware that the Arbitration Committee may very well impose a sanction far more severe than what I'm dealing out here. --Nlu 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: this unprotection is not an invitation to revert as many times as it would take not to violate 3RR. If someone violates the spirit but not the law of 3RR, I will reprotect the article with the version that I interpret to be unfavored by the person. --Nlu 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article has just been unprotected. Guidelines that I wrote above apply. --Nlu 18:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Confronted the Reichstag

Is nonsense: Nuremburg studied the Mar 15 Cabinet, recording Hitler's breezy expectance of Centre support, and negotiations with the Centre to persuade them to this had Centre Chairman Monsignor Kaas co-chairing a daily working committee with Hitler. These negotiations show that the use of the word confront here, is wrong. Confront could be a misunderstanding of English. To confront with, suggests novelty and surprise .The manner of this suggestion suggests normality also, referring to the sitting R'stag as if it were some normal parliament.The removal by arrest and murder of the Communists had completely up-set any possibility of check upon Hitler by a Centre/SPD /KPD block(however much they despised each other). The prior negotiations were a show, but the Centre gained what they could of constitutional priveliges, along with catholic Civil servant protections, and Catholic educational protections. The Socialists attempted a boycott, and were out-maneuvered by a last minute change to procedure, which justified continuance of the anti-Communist Hitler rigging(deputy arrest) as 'dormancy',confirmed for us by User:Str1977. I placed the word 'illegally' arrested deputies, hardly normal.It appears the constitutional illegality of such interference with the sovereignty of the people's deputies, disappeared by this last minute maneuver of dormancy. That could be described by the word 'confronted'. I have pointed this 'confronted' out before , and it is still erroneous . The main article is also not the Timeline . The main article was recently corrected by me. This article is simplistic . Source is the then John.W.Wheeler-Bennetts Hindenburg,The Wooden Titan, Macmillan 1936,p440-448,whose descriptions form the basis for much subsequent history. It is WB who first asks the questions as to why Kaas voted the bloc-"Was the prelate still so naïve that he believed in Nazi promises or were his nerves shaken by the chancellor's outburst and the grim incantations from without.("Give us the Bill or else fire and murder.") EffK 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles