Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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:

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 dis[en]franchisement 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

01:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I think the sentence, "The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in a massive number of deaths, commonly cited as at least 11 million people – including about 6 million Jews – in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.", should be rewritten using 'murder', 'killing' or ‘systematic extermination’ the word ‘deaths’ does not indicate intent. One of the theories of Holocaust deniers is that concentration camp victims died of disease as a result of shortages caused by Allied bombing. There is no dispute that the Nazis intended to wipe out whole classes of people. I don't see how attributing the entire death toll to Hitler is POV. He was the absolute commander of Germany, the Nazi party and the apparatus of extermination. I suggest “Under Hitler’s leadership the Nazis and their collaborators carried out the systematic extermination of people it considered undesirable, the total death toll is believed to exceed 11 million people - including about 6 million Jews – in a genocide now known as the Holocaust” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.50.167.163 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005.

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 talk - contribs 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 talk - contribs 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler is: A free encyclopedia 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 Wikipedia 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 WP: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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; Wikipedia 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 WP: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 WP: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)

Just a quick memo, as of 12:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC), ROHA has reverted the picture six times, five times connected with personal attacks on other editors. Str1977 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your conscience statistics. Hope they will be of any help for you and others. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (04122005)
I'd block, except that the IP address keeps changing. Nlu has indicated that he may block the entire range, and while I support that, I haven't worked out how to do it myself. So far I've just done individual blocks. In any case, ROHA seems to be at work late at night or early in the morning, so the page may be safe for the moment. If anyone would like me to protect it, or later to unprotect it, please let me know. I will be at the computer, with my Watchlist open, even if I don't make many posts. AnnH (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"ROHA seems to be at work late at night or early in the morning," -- Thank you for the compliment. But your guess is wrong. I am working around the clock. Meaning, I am watching "big kids" whenever they try to go out of the Wikipedia sandbox. Sometimes I have to add a 25th hour of work. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (04122005) PS: When I add my 25th hour, the kids are usually sleeping deep and well.

Following the last post from ROHA, I have reprotected the page. I'm not sure how healthy it is to have a page protected as frequently as this, but this disruption can't be allowed to go on, and I'm not going to mess with range blocks until I've read all instructions (which won't be today). I'll leave it to Nlu to decide what to do about ROHA's disruptive behaviour. However, I'm prepared to unblock if any non-disruptive editor asks me to do so, and this page is on my watchlist. AnnH (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page after blocking ROHA's range for 48 hours. (I did so by blocking IPs identical in the first 16 bits; if he moves onto IPs of a wider range, I'll block those, too.) Collateral damage is unlikely to result as that does not appear to be a range where we've seen other English Wikipedia users (they belong to a German ISP). If collateral damage does occur, any admin who's around when I'm not, please take appropriate action. (ROHA, if this behavior continues after block expires, the entire range will get at least a 1 week block, more if the situation is severe.) --Nlu 17:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI: The block belongs to the German ISP, T-Online, biggest ISP in Europe with more than 10 Million customers. This article is of special interest to German Wikipedians, so expect some backlash. I am still in favor of blocking the range, but it should be accompanied with an explanation of the reasons and a pointer to a resource to report the abuse (http://www.t-com.de/ip-abuse might do). (That's ROHA's abuse I'm talking about.) --Yooden
T-Online owns lots and lots of IPs; I am going to hope that the 16-bit unique range is owned by ROHA's local exchange; if that is the case, hopefullly any damage will be minimal. --Nlu 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not speak from authority here, but it sounds to me like you're doing the right thing, even though it seems at first rather heavy-handed. If Wikipedia gets complaints about the block, that gives us a specific reason to contact the ISP and let them know that Hans is vandalising the site, which may be actionable according to T-Online's Terms of Service. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 05:44:19Z

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)

German Businessmen

Is inaccurate, they are the Industrial Magnates, not just businessmen. I would be quite happy for them to be the Industrial Magnates as that gives the import. I do not accept German Businessmen does more than divert the inattentive reader to that which is shockingly worthy of attention. I will change it, right? I think the true clear importance is noticeable by writing Nazi-Funding Industrial Magnates, OK ?

I draw attention to the incoherence upon the Fire Decree . No legal justification is yet sourced as to the legality of Deputy arrests supposedly consequent on Hindenburg's signing of a Decree (this or another purely Police Decree?) empowering the Prussian/Berlin Police to arrest and detain sovereign memebers of the Reichstag Institution. Papen claimed ignorance, so what do we claim here? Is it legal or is it not? If it is , can we pleases prove the legality, and not simply assume it because it is tidier ,like "confronted" ???EffK 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Re your second item: the arrests were done through the executive organs (police etc) on the basis of the Fire Decree which had suspended basic rights. Not fair, not fine, but true.

Re your first item, I want to ask our fellow contributors which alternative they thinks best (the link always remaining the same):

  • Schacht, Thyssen and other leading businessman
  • Schacht, Thyssen and other Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial magnates
  • Schacht, Thyssen and other Nazi-funding Industrial magnates

I will give no arguments or preferences now. Don't want to influence anyone.

PS. EffK - if you could please not jump to the moon over any minute detail. It will be better for your (and my) nerves. Str1977 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the police, OK. But legal or not legal? Would you please tell me if it is considered legal now, if legal then, and if legal at the trials? I mean sovereign Deputies, not Communists in general. Papen answered the trials as to whether he knew that deputies were arrested and maltreated in the negative. It is one thing you not answering to do with accusations against me, but you claim to be a historian, so I ask this series of specifics , in diminuishing expectation of getting a straight answer. if you ever find out, do let me know. As to Magnates, they are called magnates from Mowrer through the post-war histories. Why change terminology from the clear specific, to the hazy general ? I know you don't want me anywhere on WP, and cannot allow that I have a native's view of language , so it is as Jimbo said, lacking merit to argue. EffK 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent EffK re-write

I am hopping from one incorrect article here to another , and refer the serious or concerned editor to in good faith relate these changes to sourcees as presented in other related articles, available via my edit button, in so far as they relate to parallel articles . I will define them if I am disbelieved . Thankyou, (and the edit history names them as Shirer, Tallet and Atkins (from user:John Kenney) , K v Klemperer, John Toland, John Wheeler-Bennett, Arthur Rosenberg and all . EffK 14:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)