Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 16

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

LINKS

I think the link to the Hitler museum should be eliminated it claims to be neutral but is really a Nazi front site as indicated by its own link page. There are enough Nazi sites out there without Wikipedia having to promote them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.50.167.163 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005.

My main problem with the site is that it claims to be neutral but isn't. If the link isn't eliminated it should be labeled as a Nazi front site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.50.167.163 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005.

Sectioned, removal/ changes POV

FK. I have Sectioned this story somewhat. I said each edit that it was a necessary section. Some people have short sight and sectioning can assist them. Others would get lost in the screen , or the story, yes? EffK 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

FK. So, Ill have to dig up the classic kick back scheme, what a drag, still rules are rules. I shall do so.

Atkins and Tallet as to the truth of the quid pro quo attested and provided by User John Kenney, as User:Str1977]] well knows. Kick back is a translation in to American English, and is used there to describe the same. I'll get the diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29/Archive1&action=edit&section=4[[1]]
Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent.

FK. Now, I sourced that all parties allowed the use of Art 48 in October 1931, so why suggest other-wise, {User:Str1977}} ? Please, be true to source ,esp. especially when I have sourced exactitudes.

FK. Now, why do you deny the relevance of , and remove the highlight to, the completely relevant and justified Westphalian-Industrial Magnates and the Nazis, Str1977 ? It is apparent that the course of Hitler's life is over-turned by this financial support in the most truly revolutionary fashion. I say this is an effort at POV enforcement .

FK. Now, I am aware that you possess strong will to insert your radical opinion via such removals , and that you do this to the limit of rationality, and beyond- as in the Source which you are prepared to traduce and yet leave billed by author. This is clearly un-acceptble policy by you, and I do not have to analyse your motivation for doing so. Your assertion as to your opinion re The Fire, is entirely un-sourced by any means, and we, I, am only interested in that which an editor can prove in good faith, as I do so. I do so to the extent of illustration of reason based in all source, including that provided by ,you say, your religion. I do not have to tarry here, as my analysis is hitherto crystal clear : I accuse you of utterly ir-rational allowance to yourself, of arrogation to yourself of power in Wikipedia greater than the accepted norms of Source.

FK. Now, in the case of the Magnates, you starkly continue to reduce the truths available through history as sourced, even as represented in Wikipedia . I am detained obnoxiously by this mis-use of good-will, my good will. Here and now you continue to provoke the serious rift of rational consensus the which I as User, should not have had to expect , or suffer still.

FK. I can only hope that some reasonable editors might realise the extreme action you take in this regard here and now. The thought that this is to continue between the two of us alone is provocation to that which I am then attacked for, explanations and ranting etc etc. Now I hope that rational witnesses and editors will avail of the buttons to undo what is opinionated editing, ie POV editing. The serious nature of Str1977 editing has come to my shocked attention since this editor's arrival on Wikipedia, as I openly attest. Any more POV changes cannot expect to further ruin my capacities to undertake good faith in WP, and I warn you here that I shall therefore with equanimity await your further POV insistence, add them all together, and post them where Arbitration will hopefully deal with you. So, go ahead, User but spare us waffle here- do your damage and here limit yourself to sourced justifications for your NPOV . EffK 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)ps you say that Papen conspired against Schleicher with Schleicher. !! 'Trivia could be the frock Geli was wearing. Not the Fuhrer's  ? tax evasion ?EffK 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FK. Ill add bad English to this : "that no longer be legally challenged" !
FK. removed resurrected EAct [[2]]
Str1977 provides something reasonable here Adolphe Legalite
A reasonable editor will judge my edit reasonably. (I will talk to one).
I did not change anything to your industrial magnates, except for including (!) their financial contributions to the broke Nazi party.
I don't know what you mean by hightlighting. Wikilinks (I did not delted this one) are there for linking, not for highlighting.
Where did I suggest what you say I do regards the Article 48. The SPD opposed Brüning's very first budget, which led to the first decree and the dissolution of the Reichstag. After that, the SPD tolerated (and Centre, DDP, DVP, BVP anyway), but unfortunately the majority was gone.
I put the tax evasion into trivia, as I don't know where to put it and it was blocking the reading flux where it was (A propos "blocking" - ARE YOU BLOCKING ME, I'd say if I reacted as you did.)
Your sectioning I partly retained. But some were too small. Is it you that is shortsighted. Just wondering, it would explain some things.
And please, before making anymore edits take a piece of paper and write a hundred times H-I-N-D-E-N-B-U-R-G. I don't want anymore Hindenbergs.

Str1977 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FK. Str1977 Removal Sourced un-contitutionality [[3]]

Hate-Monger

Did you know the Hate-Monger, a supervillain from the Marvel Comics universe, is a fictional representation of Adolf Hitler ?! Strange but True :)

Semi-protection

I'd like to suggest a this page to be semi-protected as per Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy.

I think the editors of this page do a great job of reverting vandalism, but their time could be spent much better improving this and other articles rather than wasting their time making sure it doesn't get worse than it is.

Any comments?

-- nyenyec ☎ 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Apperance

He was born with only one testicle, EXTREMLeY strange, but true! (if you do not believe me, look it up!) --198.234.191.189 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You're not the first to want to add it. And we do have an article on the song, see: Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. But it is just propaganda. See also the article on Adolf Hitler's medical health. Shanes 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing from this Article

I am glad to see that some of my input remains on this page, but several omissions are noticeable.

The Reichskonkordat, and the quid pro quo/kick-back thereof negotiated. User:Str1977 it seems balks at the inclusion of this history. This is very wrong, in fact its omission is a scandal in itself...

Monsignor or Prelate Ludwig Kaas is mentioned, as he should be, several times- but there is no link upon his name...

'Charismatic' stinks - what is this some kind of SPOV(sympathetic)/POV ? It is inaccurate as the word charismatic qualifies a lasting positive. Charismatic would certainly be appropriate to a contemporary report, but not as a one word hindsight description of a genocidal maniac. I agree we're all too stupid to find the right word- a one to keep up with the simplistic nature that some accord to these pages , but again say that mesmerising is less POV, but no I don't have a theasaurus ...

'Internal links' to Anti-semitism , Nazi Concepts, Appeasement, Concordats, People various seem to be absent along with the other matters I mention . I am no longer prepared to be assailed by reverts- as last on 15 December, designed to discredit me, and therefore leave this for virtuous editors' inspection.... EffK 10:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

-Maybe a quick statement as to why your input omissions should be "noticable" would help everyone? And just because the word 'charismatic' is misunderstood by some people, doesn't change its definition. Talk about it in its section, not here. gspawn 06:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I already did. It's still dumb and its still there. Re ommissions Noticeable because they are put in every history worth its salt. The deal with the Reichskonkordat gave international acceptance to a pariah , persuaded a third more Germans to more willingly accept the Nazi State, and this was effected through Ludwig Kaas. 'German businessmen' is imprecision, repeated twice . The sectioning I placed was clearer-at present it's distraction and counter-productive. But, here's a statement as to why I cannot even clean-up my own input- I refer you to my response of a few days ago at 15 December [[4]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005
I'm fed up with the revisionism that goes down here. It has always been impossible for me to edit on any articles, as revisionism buts in before appropriate clean-up can start. It is like building an enciclo during a punch-up. I note the tone of user Calderra/gspawn with regret. Are you suggesting that I am un-helpful by chance ? I suggest that good faith would return this article to the manner in which I left it recently , OK? Revisionism is very subtle, by the way , and uses the handy coverlets of enciclo, length, off-topic, all when at last we have the chance to write a full enciclo . Tt costs a dime for a million words, so what's with these attitudes ?

EffK 07:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think charismatic is appropriate. The positive connotation is a misunderstanding. DJ Clayworth 14:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Towards answering the question of gspawn above, I was on this point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazi_Germany#Civil_Liberties_are_not_the_point and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Pius_XII#Visible_1_1_2006_Impossibility_of_a_Serious_Article_.3F . EffK 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot win the propaganda race

For me it seems to be quite clear that you cannot keep the current propaganda pictuture of Hitler within this English Wiki article. You will have to decide by yourself. Or you will have to learn. So easy is that. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (22.12.2005) PS: Remove the pic, then I will remove your pic. Thats what it is all about.

Hans again changed the picture and the article is again protected. Like many others, I find Hans' abusive and disruptive behavior very disturbing and I completely understand if some people here don't want to negotiate with him anymore after he left the discussion. I also think that threatening to vandalize this article until the picture is changed he is weakening his point and he should be shown that we don't allow vandalism. He should just be banned and ignored. However, I further understand (please correct me) that he can change his IPs across a very broad range which makes it difficult or even impossible to ban him.
Let me try to understand him. I know, that he spends a lot of time on this and the German article. He is very interested in Hitler and he is attending the discussions to the Hitler article in the German wikipedia, where he also doesn't have a user account and is largely ignored. I guess (don't know) that he is Jewish (from his name) and considerably older than most other wikipedians (from his comments above, where he said you young [something something]). Taking into account that Hans is possibly Jewish (certainly German) and Germany's history, his obsession with the picture makes sense, so I suggest we should be considerate with him and not judge him too hard.
Talking about the picture, I personally was also a little bit shocked when I saw that a propaganda photo appeared on top of the article, but didn't want to start a discussion when the article just had improved that much. But, when I read Charles' comments about his childhood experience with propaganda, I couldn't refrain from giving my two cents. I see from comments above that some other people also didn't like the photo. For technical reasons (resolution, cropping) the picture may be preferable, but it certainly is not NPOV (simply because it is propaganda) and therefore not appropriate for use in an encyclopedia that can be accessed by everyone, e.g. children and other people, who are not familiar with European history, and who are susceptible to propaganda. I don't think it matters what kind of photography Stalin's article shows, but I think, even if this would mean giving in to terrorism, even if Hans should be banned, a different picture has to be found. I think we had one before, that was (maybe technically inferior) more appropriate, because more neutral. As Charles said, the current picture could be placed somewhere farther in the article, so the point about how Hitler wanted to present himself could still be made.
About banning Hans, an administrator should contact T-Online (his German internet provider).
Ben T/C 16:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the controversy over use of a propaganda picture - if you go to the Elizabeth I of England article, that uses propaganda portraits and nobody objects. If the use of the picture was in itself propaganda, or promoted the aims of that propaganda, then there would be a valid objection. And excusing a disruptive editor's conduct because of his ethnic sensitivities is not on.--shtove 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't excuse him. I think he should be banned, I thought I made that clear. Then, there is a small difference between Elizabeth and Adolf Hitler. Ben T/C 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No excuse - good stuff. I'm familiar with the Elizabeth article, so I took it as an example, and my portrait point relates to propaganda only. But just for the hell of it - the English queen condoned criminal privateering for the benefit of the state, encouraged colonisation by driving out natives, oversaw war in Ireland "by fire, sword and famine" (justified by dodgy racial comparisons), and used propaganda to great affect for the establishment of a greater England and, ultimately, Britain: how small is the difference? When it comes to historical comparisons, I've left messages above about our fascination with Hitler and relative ignorance of Stalin - we seem so eager to heap our opprobrium on him that we forget he was just a man, and that others have been equally capable of evil.--shtove 20:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I still think, I didn't excuse him but tried to understand him, there is a difference. I like what you said about the queen and how people are capable of evil. Probably there are still many people out there who adore her as a strong monarch. Ok, so tell me about her pictures, please. Are there pictures of Elizabeth that show her in a more NPOV way, show her recognizably, and are appropriate for an encyclopedia? Ben T/C 21:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if an act can't be justified, it can be excused (the difference between murder and manslaughter in a crime of passion); but even if it can't be excused, can it be understood? Perhaps in a psychiatric sense. I agree with your comments on Hans, but a person of good faith shouldn't entertain crankiness in others - it only encourages the buggers to keep doing what they're doing. On Elizabeth's portraits, I think there's five contained in the article, two of which are non-propaganda (or non-iconographic); there's a good external link at the end of the article, which shows just how well she managed her image. I think both types of portrait (if they really are to be distinguished) are appropriate to Wikipedia - include as many as possible. Should the lead photograph be a strong one? I'd say so, just to grab attention for the article - after all, the greater part of the content is in the words. There are people who adore Elizabeth, and rightly so - she was a remarkable woman; unfortunately, many of her admirers are unthinking patriots. Have you voted in the Charisma delete-undelete section above? The only right government is "of the people, by the people, for the people", but I think the Hitler obsession sets up a historical costume drama that helps people to ignore Abe Lincoln's advice and claim vindication for their own prejudices. I'm not mad.--shtove 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Our understandings of excuse seem to differ. I say he should be punished because he violated rules. His behavior is not acceptable. When I say, I can try to understand it, I mean that his motives were possibly not "evil", in a way that's similar to manslaughter and murder. This judgement of mine is perfectly in line with the assume good faith guideline.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said, about "of the people, by the people, for the people" and Hitler cult as a vindication to defy democratic principals. However, I don't see what your conclusion is. Mine is the following: Nazis and anti-democrats characterize him as the energetic, charismatic, and strong leader, who started a war, determined to help the German people that was unable to help itself. I think a picture showing him in a uniform promotes that characterization and is therefore bad in the lead.
I didn't read the Elizabeth stuff yet (I have to admit I suspect it to be off-topic), but I will. There is a saying: "a picture says more than 1000 words." Pictures convey emotions to the viewer. For pictures there should be the same policy as for text. They should be NPOV. This means, that if there is a pro-something picture, it has to be complemented with enough NPOV pictures and explanations and possibly POV pictures for the other side. Propaganda pictures unbalance an article.
BTW, I just voted in the charisma section. Ben T/C 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

was Hitler a Rothschild?

i read that his paternal grandmother was pregnant while in the service of Salomon Rothschild in Austria. Piggo31 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ten foot pole

I ain't going near this article, not even with a ten foot pole. Kudos to those of you that have ventured into doing so. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda picture?

I don't see what the big deal about Adolf Hitler's picture is. When I first saw the picture, I had no idea it was a propaganda picture. It's not like it says "help Germany win the war" or anything. Just because the picture was taken for propaganda purposes, it doesn't mean it is propaganda. Hitler was a military leader--what's wrong with depicting him in a uniform? --Bowlhover 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Most usable (i.e. good quality, close up) photos will be propaganda or publicity shots at least. Does anyone even have a photo not authorized by Hitler that could be used? --Davril2020 04:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If Hitler had left one legacy, it’s his propaganda machine. Even his advisory Josef Stalin was interested in the way the Fuhrer portrait himself to the world. For just that reason Germans rarely publish anything Nazi. Instead of fighting about the propaganda pictures, rather add an interpretation of the photo and state its propaganda value. If no propaganda material is to be shown then all photos of Hitler taken after the end of the First World War should be removed.

Recent Vandalism

I wonder if the flood of vandalism this article experienced last month had anything to do with radio host Phil Hendrie - he went on a little rant about how ridiculous Wikipedia is for not reviewing edits before they're applied to articles. Then he asked his listeners to go to the Adolph Hitler article and just vandalize the hell out of it, to prove his point. Hendrie's show is very odd, but it's also nationally syndicated. --relaxathon 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, that some people write lines about this famous Nazi-leader, and do not know, at the same time, how to spell his first name. These are the types of contributors to this Wikipedia article, who propagate the current propaganda picture of the famous Nazi-leader, but have never read a single line in a scientific textbook about the history. What a shame ! Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (03012006)
That's a very probable scenario. But he and his army of vandals didn't count on our new policy, did they? Mwahahaha! The wiki prevails! --TantalumTelluride 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

six to ten million Jews? Wannsee, and "final solution"

Was this citation footnoted? If anything, I'd always heard the figure was between five and six million (I recall reading that The Destruction of European Jewry, described as the most definitive work on the Holocaust [written by Jewish historian Raul Hilberg], put the number around 5.1 million).

Also I've read that the Wannsee Conference was the not *the* time and place where the Holocaust was "planned", in fact there was no single meeting that laid out the whole process, but people like to imagine there was a singlular event that can be identified as the "main event" so to speak. (Consider the fact that Himmler himself did not attend.) (This fits in with what is sometimes referred to as the "functionalist" vs. the "intentionalist" school of Holocaust scholarship, with which I happen to agree [the former that is].)

Also "Endlösung" in German does not have any specific connotation to the Holocaust, in my experience, rather it is phrase (or word) which can be applied to any situation, thus the proper expression is "Endlösung der jüdischen Frage" or "Final Solution of the Jewish Question"--can any native speakers confirm this? --Critic9328 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe then, now it's pretty closely connected to the Holocaust. --Yooden

You're right here. From the transcripts of the Wannsee Konferenz, we know that the Holocaust had already been planned by this point. Mobile gassing trucks were in use (they had originally been used to gas children with disabilities) and the gas chambers at Auschwitz were under construction. At Wannsee, the various branches of the Nazi bureacracy were instructed to put the "evacuation" (the euphemism used to describe killing) of the Jewish population into effect.

As to the number killed in the Holocaust, I've heard 5 million and I've heard 7 million, with most historians accepting the figure is around 6 million.

ID of Hitler's body

On a History Channel documentary they said that identification was made using Hitler's ears (I don't remember if it said that this was in conjunction with dental records or by itself), apparently ears are like fingerprints and they had some way of comparing the corpse they found with medical records.

Also they mentioned something about a double that Hitler had employed during the war to frustrated would-be assassins, and that this man was also killed at this time, this being part of the reason for the belief that Hitler himself survived. Finally they said he aimed the pistol he used upwards through his mouth, as a gunshot through the sinal cavity will cause massive distortion of the facial features, making identification difficult (Hitler was apparently loathe to subject his body to the same [mis]treatment that Mussolini had received in Italy [his body had been hung upside-down in a public square and people spit on it]).

Also the show claimed that his skull was not destroyed along with the rest of his remains in the 1960's but was sent back to Russia where it still exists.--Critic9328 16:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This Adolf Hitler a Good Article ?

As fo the list of categories below I say :Nonsense-it is an un-worthy Article.EffK 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not really very helpful. Slightly more specific criticism would be. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

German Businessmen

I objected to the reduction of Magnates to this looser weaker, ill decribing term. I believe I sourced the correct term, but certainly sourced the facts, and now it is up for deletion under the genral historical term , which was Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. Someone had tacked on ++++and the Nazis, unhelpfully, I always thought. Do we care that without their lolly/dosh/re-finacing and grants, that Hitler would have failed in his enterprise? That Papen, the ex-chancellor king-maker conspirator, welded through the bankers these magnates into the grand enterprise? The enterprise as a controlled counter-revolution or defeat of the entire left, even the democratic left, and married the desire of even the papacy to this. The sporting hero scheming two faced catholic nobleman, so well known to the German President, his family, the Aristocrats, the landowoning class of Prussia, the Army officer class, the magnates or largest Industrialists of particularly Rhine-westphalia, the Catholic Church highest, the corrupt nationalist media and business circle, the whole bang-shoot. Do we delete him, Papen, too, being as he is , sourceable as being and doing all this? Some sane editor could think. EffK 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)