Talk:Adolf Hitler

Third proposal

"In response to the army's threat, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives, which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934." (the bold part is the new change)

Sources supporting my claim:

• The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, page 281–82
• Richard Evans (2005). The Third Reich in Power, page 31
• Ian Kershaw (2008). Hitler, page 302: "leadership was intensely and increasingly alarmed by the military pretenses of the SA. Failure on Hitler‘s part to solve the problem of the SA would conceivably lead to army leaders favoring an alternative head of state on Hindenburg‘s death."

Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The army did not threaten anyone! Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, Blomberg and Hindenburg did in fact threaten Hitler that the army would seize power if Hitler didn't act quickly. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a literal threat. Dictionary's definition of threat (one of the possible definitions): "an indication or warning of probable trouble, or of being at risk for something terrible." Hitler knew he had to act quickly before the army would have seized power. In any case, the sources are supporting my position. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The current sentence is untrue and misleading. Hitler didn't do the purge because of some people's anxiety. Of course, there were other factors, but the army's threat was no doubt the biggest factor. It's impossible to fit everything in 1 sentence. Interested readers can read more in detail at Night of the Long Knives article. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no point in continuing this discussion. We have entered an Alice in Wonderland world where words mean whatever you want them to mean. The army apparently means Hindenburg and a threat does not have to mean a literal threat! Apart from inanimate objects (the car threatened to leave the road) or abstract concepts (the weather threatened to deteriorate), I cannot think of any situation in which the word 'threat' does not necessitate an actual threat!

How on earth would the reader be expected to understand that "the army" does not mean "the army" and that "threat" does not mean an actual "threat". All that of course before even asking whether this is the explanation offered by the best, currently respected sources. Apologies, I will not engage any more - discussion at this level is pointless. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't invent the definition. They're from the dictionary. Hindenburg only made Hitler realize about the army's threat. The army doesn't mean Hindenburg. Hindenburg was only informing to Hitler. The army had been planning to seize power even before Hindenburg talked to Hitler. The threat here was an indication that the army would seize power if Hitler didn't act soon enough. The army does mean the army, and threat means an indication of something terrible. Ian Kershaw's biography is actually currently one of the best respected sources on Hitler. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So, you're just going to ignore the warning [1] just issued to you by admin Bishonen and continue to WP:Bludgeon this discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have asked on AN/I for an admin to suggest to Nguyentrongphu that they stop WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hitler's Last Public Speaking was on July 4, 1944

MODERATOR: This article should include... Hitler gave his last public speaking engagement for a private group of 200 German industry leaders on July 4, 1944. 2601:589:4802:AB0:80F4:8C3:9BBD:C5A (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, YouTube is not a reliable source. There are a plethora of good books on Hitler, any fact to to added to the article should be sourced by one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

i wouldlike to add extra info GamerTay7 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please show us the information you wish to add, with reliable sources, and it will be considered, as per usual practice here. Britmax (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

I want to write about my charity Kreedinnikora (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. — IVORK _Talk 06:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No, they may not "write about their charity" in the article about Adolf Hitler. Further, your suggestion that they ask for additional user rights is misleading, since ECP must be earned, and is not usually given out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Should evil be wikilinked?

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but should we be linking evil as Historian and biographer Ian Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil"? I'd add the wikilink myself but for an article as prominent as this I'd imagine changes to the lead should probably be discussed first. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't normally wikilink common English words any more. We don't normally add wikilinks within quotations. So my opinion is No.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree on the conclusion (that linking achieves nothing useful), if not the logic. There ARE questions the reader might ask - and historians/commentators do sometimes ask - about AH/the Nazis and evil (why precisely he/they have such a terribe reputation? If AH why not Stalin, Pol Pot? Was it AH or an entire nation? etc) - but those questions aren't going to be asked, let alone addressed, on the Evil page, and in fact are more likely to be addressed implicitly on THIS page. Conversely there are a multitude of perennial philosophical, quasi-religious questions about what evil is - but those questions aren't going to inform anyone about AH. I don't want to trivialise this matter, but ultimately recording that AH is sometimes seen as the epitome of that extreme and inexplicable cruelty, indifference and moral degeneracy that we generally refer to as "evil', is simply recording a "reputational superlative" - it would be remiss to fail to record it as much as it would be remiss to not record that certain sports figures, politicians or artistic figures are widely seen as being 'great' . Pincrete (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well, but in particular, I wanted to applaud Pincrete's excellent summation of the matter. Kudos for stating some complex and challenging (defensible) ideas so well/in such a short span. Xanthos IV (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

The legacy section reads:

"Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil". "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man", he adds."

This is in incorrect tense. It should be:

Kershaw described Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil". "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man", he added. Ardenter (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Does Kershaw's book no longer exist? If I pick up my copy, will those words not still be there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ardenter, it isn't a grammatical error - it's a stylistic choice when recording opinions expressed in books etc - as BMK implies, it suggests the views are still 'alive'. "Chaucer writes of the Wife of Bath as being …", is legitimate and is how we ALWAYS record plots or summaries of books films plays etc ("Hamlet meets the ghost of his father, who tells him he must revenge … "). When used to record the views of a historian, or similar, I personally find it a little grating and unnatural - but it is a standard usage and not grammatically wrong. This article uses a mixture of present and past tenses in such situations, but whether we should be consistent, I've no idea, probably not. Pincrete (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please reply.

Adolf was born in Braunau am Inn! I please need the right to edit this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.90.243 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's already there, please read the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's in the Adolf Hitler#Early years section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding more information about Adolf's paintings.

In an effort to make this historical figure seem more human and balanced, I was considering adding more information about his youth and interest in painting if that is okay with everyone? Seems like it would make for a better article if a more human approach was done in telling his story.

I was thinking of adding more information about Adolf's paintings.

In an effort to make this historical figure seem more human and balanced, I was considering adding more information about his youth and interest in painting if that is okay with everyone? Seems like it would make for a better article if a more human approach was done in telling his story.