Talk:Adolf Hitler

"Jew killer" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jew killer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Jew killer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

i think it should be kept. if people can't remember Hitler's name and can only remember that he killed jews, the redirect "jew killer" can help people find the person they're looking for SadInAShed (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(1) It is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would have trouble remembering Hitler's name. (2) Comment on the redirect discussion page, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Died in office

Like many other Wikipedia articles that feature an individual who died in office, the opening paragraph should acknowledge the fact that he died in office. In addition, the current format may cause some readers (who have not yet looked at the info box and found out the fact that it was until his death) to at first think that he left in 1945 and died later that same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Hitler officially named—via a final will and testament—Admiral Dönitz his successor as Staatsoberhaupt, Reichspräsident, and Supreme Commander of the German military and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels the new Reichskanzler (Chancellor) before he committed suicide. Thereto, he did not die in office. He had resigned and assigned others to his posts before he died. For that reason, no changes to this article in this regard need to be made. --Obenritter (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked the wording of Hitler's political testament [1], and it says nothing about his appointments taking effect on his death. He simply writes "I appoint the following members of the new Cabinet as leaders of the nation: ..." This "political testament" was separate from his personal will, which presumably took effect on this death (but which, in actuality, remained in limbo for some years because it took some time for a court to officially pronounce Hitler as being dead). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

From our point of view, why is whether he died in office important enough to be made explicit? I don't see any good reason, especially in an opening para. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see that as being necessarily a norm for opening paragraphs (as implied by the OP) e.g. Stalin, Lenin. I suppose the end of the first sentence could read “...from 1933 to his suicide in 1945.” which would provide info on how his life ended - potentially significant enough for the first para of his bio and currently at the end of the lead. But it’s marginal. (It’s certainly not worth getting into whether he “died in office” or whether there was technically a few hours gap. Secondary sources would need to be provided and that’s surely not worth the search!) DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Most seats" is "majority"

In the lead:

By November 1932, the Nazi Party had the most seats in the German Reichstag but did not have a majority.

Option 1:

By November 1932, the Nazi Party was the biggest one in the German Reichstag but did not have a majority..

Option 2: ... --2A01:C22:88C3:6E00:ECF4:94E1:FF6B:B1A2 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it works as is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

note a parliamentary majority means most of the parlimetary seats, not the most seats.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Making the point more clearly would IMO require something longer eg By November 1932, the Nazi Party was the largest party in the German Reichstag but did not have an overall majority - but I think it is sufficiently clear at present. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Americans use the word “plurality” for this. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A majority is over 50%. The Nazis had the most seats but not more than 50% of seats. PassedDown (talk | contribs) 21:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Add “Führer” title

Someone who is able to edit this article should add the title “Führer” to reflect its use under his dictatorship. BakedGoods357 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

its in the second line of the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I can see that but isn’t it more proper to have it right above the name like it is done here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

I am sorry I’m new to Wikipedia editing and do not know what that is called. BakedGoods357 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, what title is right above his name?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

“His Excellency” followed by “Duce” then below it his name BakedGoods357 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Our first and second line on Hitler "Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (About this soundlisten); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[a] becoming Chancellor in 1933 and then assuming the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934."

On Musilioni "Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian: [beˈniːto mussoˈliːni];[1] 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician and journalist who founded and led the National Fascist Party. He was Prime Minister of Italy from the March on Rome in 1922 until his deposition in 1943, and "Duce" of Italian Fascism from the establishment of the Italian Fasces of Combat in 1919 until his execution in 1945 by Italian partisans." (not I do not see "His Excellency" in either line).

I am not seeing the difference.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, The infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Then I agree it does seem odd to not have his tiel in the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the info box, that’s what it was lol. Do you have the ability to edit it? BakedGoods357 (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if anyone comes up with a reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright sounds good BakedGoods357 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• In general, I am opposed to anything that in any way glorifies or dignifies Nazis and fascists in even the tiniest way. These people are the global equivalent of axe murderers, and I wouldn't put "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss" or "Ms" in infoboxes about them. Therefore, I've removed "His Excellency" and "Duce" from the Mussolini infobox (someone will likely restore it soon), and I'm strongly opposed to adding any honorifics to this article's infobox. "Adolf Hitler" all alone, by itself is quite sufficient, we don't need to refer to him by the title that he preferred. His titles are explained in the article itself, which is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think showing the titles these leaders held at the time glorifies them in any way, it simply shows what the government at the time officially recognized, and should be kept for historical accuracy. Kim il Sung and Kim Jong-il’s articles have the “eternal leader” title, almost making them look like gods despite being mass murderers themself. However, it shows the extent of their cult of personalities, just like the title of any dictator. BakedGoods357 (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We should follow the MOS (if it covers this issue) or the general practice (if it doesn't). I don't see a reason to treat major criminals differently. Zero^talk 05:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s difficult to discern whether there’s a general practice. It seems to be quite inconsistent - political leaders infoboxes seem to have a wide variety of treatments eg FDR, Hideki Tojo and Stalin have nothing, Winston Churchill and Mannerheim have some honorifics but not prime minister, Francisco Franco has everything. I looked at a dozen others and they seem equally random. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

'Prime Minister' (or indeed any UK Govt minister), is only used for the current office holder, it's no different from 'headmaster' or many other job titles, therefore Churchill's does have ALL the apt honorifics (the various orders of his knighthood etc). I believe US presidents keep 'Mr President' for life, but it is not substantially used outside interviews. Partly at issue here is whether the honorific is used beyond the person's incumbency or death. Also, no one I think would refer to "The Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler", so I'm not sure if it is actually an honorific (in the sense of something attached to the name) . I sympathise with BMK, that it would seem bizarre to appear to be according AH any title. There is a distinction between recording and according a title, but how that plays out in practice I'm unsure. Pincrete (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Dash style

@BaxçeyêReş and Beyond My Ken: em dashes or en dashes are both fine, but this article should stay consistent in its usage. It looks like em dashes are currently used throughout the article for sentence punctuation. BMK, if you want, you could change all uses to en dashes. If not, we should restore the em dashes to the lead. I have a preference for emdashes but no compelling reason to insist on their usage; I am frequently on mobile and don't find any difference between the two in readability. If you do want to change to all en dashes, you may want to use the  – template to incorporate the spacing style recommended by MOS:DASH. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your position makes perfect sense, Firefangledfeathers; thank you sincerely for dropping in. I will leave this decision to @Beyond My Ken: I don't wish to be accused of edit warring for pointing out a simple mistake, and they seem to be a more experienced authority in regards to the Hitler article regardless. Have a fantastic day! BaxçeyêReş (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool with me. I used Template:snd to get the spacing right on the en dashes. My bad for not putting the template into <nowiki> tags in my above message. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you recently reverted my switch to Template:snd citing concerns that it makes the editing page harder to read. I am unconvinced by that point. Editors have to contend with all manner of wiki markup that interferes with normal prose reading, but we generally put up with it to improve the experience for readers. Use of the template or the more unwieldy  – is recommended by MOS:DASH and I don't believe there's a reason for this article to diverge from MOS. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Recommended, not required. I've been editing here for 16 years and I think I know what makes an editing page easier to read and navigate, no matter what MOS says. The snd template has to be butted up against the word that follows it, and that is awkward and visually difficult. Please do not revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I know it's hard to nail the tone when communicating online, but genuinely and seriously: thank you for the many years you have been working on Wikipedia. That said, your point about editor readability is absolutely true, but doesn't address my point – that it's almost always true that wiki markup designed to optimize readability for readers interferes with editor readability. Your point is also true of every use of en dashes as sentence punctuation on every article; I presume that the community consensus that created and upheld MOS:DASH was comfortable with the benefits outweighing the harm. If you feel that point wasn't raised or properly considered, you are welcome to start a discussion about changing MOS:DASH. For now, is there any reason not to go against the recommended format here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am as fully committed as anyone on Wikipedia to serving the reader, but an ndash with a space before it and after it is rendered precisely the same as the snd template butted up against the words before and after it. There is no benefit to the reader in using the snd template, it's simply a shorthand for (space)(ndash)(space):

word – word

word – word

Same same. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not true. You may want to read the template documentation, but the short version is that the template inserts a non-breaking space before the dash. The point is to avoid a line break occurring just before the dash, and the dash therefore confusingly starting a new line – a typographical no-no that predates and applies beyond Wikipedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and BaxçeyêReş: any further thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• No further thoughts, it's fine as it is now. A dash at the beginning of a line is not a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• I can only repeat BMK's stance :) BaxçeyêReş (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Sunnyfine (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

hi according to History channel and FBI and CIA investigating and documentary film about hitler and new evidence , hitler was seen in italy and other places so he didn't die in that bunker.

I think we need better sources than the history channel. Care to actually provide the name of a better source?Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent infobox changes

The recent spate of editing over the infobox has left some anomalies and oddities and I suspect the present result is more the result of "where the ball stopped rolling", rather than any agreement about the issues. I'm relatively neutral about some of those matters, so long as the final effect is clear and consistent with the article text (as well being WP:V by WP:RS of course), but think the matters worth discussing.

First of all Hitler's main title. It has been wrongly argued that WP:COMMONNAME applies. It doesn't since that is a guideline for article titles and anyway the actual practice for political offices is to use a semi-formal title ('Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', not 'British Prime Minister', 'President of the United States', not 'American President' or 'President of America'). However, even if we choose to go for the common nam-ish title, would that not be "Führer" rather than "Führer of Germany", which I think is neither fish nor fowl, neither the formality of the actual title 'Führer und Reichskanzler' in English or German, or both, nor the commonly used 'Führer'. No one I suspect has ever referred to the "Führer of Germany", partly because there has never been any 'Führers' of anywhere else. My own reaction is that this 'job title' is akin to 'President of America' and would be more educative if it were more formal or more accessible if more informal.

Secondly, did Hitler cease to be Chancellor in 1934 (when the powers of Chancellor were incorporated into those of Führer) or was he still Chancellor at his death? The sources seem to me to favour the first reading but I claim no special expertise. I know titles were merged (Hitler became Führer und Reichskanzler – although eventually Reichskanzler was quietly dropped), but can you meaningfully hold an office and function which has ceased to exist as an independent entity? Of course the key is what do sources say. I'm happy to go with consensus on this, but the infobox needs to reflect what is decided. If Hitler ceased to be Chancellor in 1934 because that function became part of the Führer function, then the office of Chancellor was vacant from 1934 until his death 11 years later and some way of noting that or simply ommitting his successor needs to happen (Goebbels only technically inherited the office for one day anyway). The old infobox wrongly implied that Goebbels took over in 1934 and needed fixing.

Lastly is "Nazi Germany" needed anywhere in the infobox (it was previously underneath both the Führer and the Chancellor job titles). This was discussed relatively recently and I can't remember what was decided. Personally I can see the benefit of using it as a shorthand form of "Germany-during-the-Nazi-period" when the linking of it can give context. I'm neutral here but would rather see only ONE use under Führer.

The principal changes are hers in between edits proposed various compromises.

Overall, are people happy with the recent changes? Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, the articles for those countries are titled United Kingdom and United States, not "Britain" or "America", and the articles for the offices are titled Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and President of the United States. So, having those links in the infoboxes is entirely in line with respecting the common names of the offices. Per WP:PLA, we should be linking to the common name article titles for the offices. For Chancellor, that article is titled Chancellor of Germany. For Fuhrer, you are correct, that is just Fuhrer without the "of Germany", so I could go either way there, but I think the "of Germany" is important for context. That's why there's a redirect. And since they kept both Fuhrer and Chancellor as part of his title (and he opted in his will to keep the offices separate), they should be kept separate in the infobox. If the title was "quietly dropped", I think we should try to figure out exactly when and how that formally occurred without making any assumptions about it.

I am strongly opposed to putting (Nazi Germany) under the offices. It's unnecessary clutter to state which era the country was in, and we don't do that anywhere else. All countries have eras that historians have assigned labels to, that doesn't mean there's any official delineation between them that is relevant to the offices. I believe doing that would require broader consensus.

I think we get a little carried away with trying to cram as much detail as possible into infoboxes sometimes. Infoboxes should be simple, and should not overwhelm readers with extraneous information. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The article titles for UK/US leaders are not COMMONNAME either for the offices, nor the countries, they are semi-formal for both. America/Britain are the commonest ways of referring to either country. But regardless, you don't make the ordinary way of referring to Hitler's 'job' by combining the ordinary way of talking about the job with the ordinary way of referring to the country - the world doesn't always work like that, Mussolini was not "il Duce of Italy". That is part of the reason why the linked article title is actually 'Führer' because I think nobody actually calls the man 'Führer of Germany', nobody did in Germany nor anywhere else during his lifetime or has done since. 'Führer of Germany', IMO is an invention created according to a formula that ignores the real world use. Besides COMMONNAME doesn't apply to infobox content, ordinary considerations of informative value and clarity do. I would favour what we had - the translation of his formal title, but could live with plain 'Führer'.

I think I know your opinion, since frankly you edit-warred it into place without ever once coming to this talk page or consulting archives, a broader consensus DID exist about almost everything on this page. I'm just checking whether the new consensus is that these changes are an improvement by inviting other editors to respond NOW. If others are heppy, I will drop the matter. I don't necessarily disagree about Nazi Germany, but know that in the past strong arguments have been advanced for including it. The key question is the judgement of whether it clarifies or clutters - in this instance, I think it clutters, but the question is worth asking.

Some of these questions are judgements about what is clearest and most informative, but some (like when he ceased to be Chancellor) are questions of what sources say, and are not susceptible to the sort of logical deduction you are advocating. If the post ceased meaningfully to exist, it doesn't matter what title he temporarily adopted. I don't know the answer to that one, I know how I'm inclined to interpret the sources, but will go with the majority opinion. Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, a single revert is not edit-warring. You also did a single revert. I'm not going to go straight to falsely accusing you of misconduct, though. That really undermines your argument.

If you think Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is not a COMMONNAME, then you can start a move discussion for that article. For now, that is the title, so it is a factual matter that that is the current COMMONNAME. I have never said that COMMONNAME as a policy applies to infobox content, I'm saying it makes sense to link the article title (which follows COMMONNAME), unmodified, per WP:PLA. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What do RS call him?