Talk:Adolf Hitler

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? post left by Slaterstevens

Tartan, I have not the slightest interest or intention of changing the title of the UK Prime Minister article, but fairly obviously both the name of the article and the name used in infoboxes is semi-formal, therefore it is not common name in the sense of the most frequently used informal term. Article title and infobox content are a compromise - AS THEY SHOULD BE between various factors. Looking at the edit history, you were not warring, apologies another editor partially restored then you completed. But regardless, the issues are worth discussing.

Thinking about it, it makes no sense to say that a new combined post of Führer and Chancellor was created, but at the same time AH retained the old post of Chancellor. I would still rather hear what sources/other editors say, but the most obvious reading is that a new post with unique powers and a merged title was created and the older post simply ceased to exist while he was alive. Of course it is possible to hold two jobs at the same time, but I don't think that is what happened.

Slaterstevens, I think it would be hard to assess google-wise whether 'Führer' or 'Führer of Germany' is more common, since they are unequal searches, my insticts tell me that 'Führer' is more common, the title is so associated with the individual. But that anyway isn't the real issue, which is what is the clearest, most useful, and most informative way to refer to him in the infobox, the short informal term (Führer) or the longer more formal one (Führer and Chancellor of the Reich). Both of these are fully WP:V in WP:RS I think and it is more a judgement than a policy matter. Pincrete (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, agreed, the discussion about how to name the offices is a Wikipedia guidelines matter—all terms under discussion exist in RS depending on context. Where the RS come into this discussion is whether we should treat the offices as separate or merged. I think the use of "and" in the title (Fuhrer and Chancellor) suggests they technically remained distinct, but perhaps RS disagree. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

IF AH did cease to be Chancellor in 1934 (which is my reading of events and sources) - then it is misleading to simply list Goebbels as successor without any explanation. Resolving that anomaly was part of your first edit and I agree 100% with the need to resolve it, even if we disagree as to how. I'm sorry if my initial tone was over-confrontational. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, apology accepted. I'm happy to look at the sources if you want to present them. I think the first issue we need to resolve is whether he ceased to be chancellor in 1934, then we can move on to deciding how best to present that information. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't currently have access to original text sources, only to the text and cites incorporated into WP. Usually when something crops up on this page, 2 or 3 'subject experts' are able to pitch in immediately - that is what I had hoped would happen this time! Perhaps it's the holiday season or perhaps no one cares that much. Either way, I'd be extremely grateful for any leg-work you are able to do. As I've already said, my reading has always been that the Chancellor job effectively ceased to exist in 1934 and its powers were 'rolled into' the new 'Führer and Chancellor' role - simultaneously head of govt and head of State and thus answerable to no one. Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hitler’s title

Hitler’s full title is cited on his Wikipedia page. At no point was he ever referred to alone officially as Fuhrer of Germany: it was always Fuhrer and Chancellor. Maybe we can drop the Reich bit: it is a tad unnecessary. ---<font face="Georgia">'''User:Lawrencegordon |<span style="color:#009900">lawrencegordon </span>'''</font><font face="Courier New">_{''[[User talk:Lawrencegordon |<span style="color:#006600">I am the best </span>]]''}</font> (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Lawrencegordon, chancellor is listed as a separate concurrent office, so "Fuhrer and Chancellor" is covered. Combining them in the infobox messes with the successions too much, IMO. See #Recent infobox changes, and feel free to contribute to building a consensus there. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, I've moved this up to a prior related discussion. I partly agree with each of you. I think "Fuhrer of Germany" is an invention - not something used then or now. It's like saying "Dalai Lama of Tibet" or "Taoiseach of Ireland" - there is only one Fuhrer, one Dalai Lama, one place that has a Taoiseach. So "of Germany" is clumsily redundant and has never actually been used by anyone. IMO we either say "Fuhrer" - the simplest solution or we say 'Fuhrer and (Reichs)Chancellor' - which is an approximation of his actual title.

I also think that being "Fuhrer and Chancellor" is not simply being BOTH Fuhrer and Chancellor at the same time. The offices of Fuhrer and Chancellor cannot meaningfully be done at the same time much as President and Vice-President cannot be done at the same time. This analogy is flawed, but my point is that the principal function of head of state in the German system is to act as 'referee' to the executive - led by the Chancellor. You cannot meaningfully be both referee and a player. What you are actually doing is to abolish all constitutional checks and to incorporate all political powers into the new Fuhrer role. This move abolished ordinary politics and ordinary political roles and responsibilities. The clearest way to show this in my opinion is to say that he was Chancellor until 1934 and he was then the new position of "Fuhrer and Chancellor" from 1934-45. I think my interpretation is borne out by the sources, but this is also partly how to render a complex situation clearly. Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your statement that they cannot meaningfully be done at the same time seems to be based on the assumption of a functioning democracy, which Nazi Germany was not. It doesn't really matter what our opinions of the constitutional reasonableness of this arrangement are. This line of reasoning is getting into WP:OR. He was a dictator, and these were the titles he chose to use. He assumed them separately, and he left them separately, so it's easiest for us to treat them separately in the infobox. That's really all it's about—I don't think we'd be implying anything about the power structure by listing them separately or together. The point you raised previously about the chancellor part of the title possibly being dropped is more significant, I think. I haven't seen any evidence of this happening at a specific time, and like I left it at before, I welcome any you're willing to provide.

Putting the country name after the title is something we often do to provide context even if it's not formally part of the title (we don't tend to use full formal names, anyway). However, in this case I'd agree context is not needed since the title Fuhrer is so strongly associated with Hitler, so I'm fine with changing that to just "Fuhrer" if that's what you want to do. Although I will note that "Fuhrer of the Nazi Party" is also listed in his infobox, so there was more than one office with that name in a sense. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief. In part I think we are both in WP:OR territory since since there is no substantial disagreement about events, simply how best to render them in an infobox. I also take the opposite view to you in that I think him doing several jobs at once presupposes some established political order/established roles with limits to their powers. There was only one political decision maker in that regime acting in the newly created role of 'Fuhrer', with no limits to his powers. I think we are getting confused by the fact that he incorporated the word 'Chancellor' in his title - which all the sources say was fairly quickly dropped anyway. However I am happy for others to decide what they think is clearest and to 'pitch in' with whatever the sources say. Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

“Austrian-born” - is it really necessary?

Is it really worth including “Austrian-born” when the article states he was born in Austria in the lede anyway? Without trying to cause any offence to Austrians and Germans today respectively, the general national identity of Austrians during the late 19th century and early 20th century was not the same as it has been for the last few decades. Whilst it’s irrelevant to include in the article what Adolf Hitler and the Nazis thought of who were Germans and who were not Germans, I can’t help but feel this article is putting too much emphasis on Hitler’s Austrian origin.--82.47.115.109 (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

People still talk about Napoleon being Corsican, and it's mentioned in the lead. So why not mention Hitler's place of birth.— Diannaa (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, it was part of who he was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This one seems to have gone round and round since I first started watching this page. The most recent discussion is here. To be honest, I've forgotten what I originally thought about this - but I understood the reasons for it NOT being there. Where I think the IP is definitely right is repeating “Austrian-born”/" born in Austria" in paras 1 and 2 is clumsy phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This distinction of Hitler's birthplace is mentioned in every major biography ever written about him. Omitting it seems ridiculous. --Obenritter (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested NOT recording that he was born in Austria - the question I think was whether it need be in the opening sentence, (was an Austrian-born German politician) when it is also expanded at the beginning of para 2 (Hitler was born in Austria, then part of Austria-Hungary, and was raised near Linz. He moved to Germany in 1913). Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How would you word the opening sentence in that case? Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. is a possibility. Compare Napoleon— Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That's what we actually had for quite a few years - complete with a warning not to add "Austrian-born” to the opening sentence. To be honest, I didn't notice it had changed and I've ceased to remember which version 'reads better' for me, since it has changed quite a few times, BUT I do think the present duplication of place of birth in the openings of paras 1 & 2 very 'clunky' - so we should rephrase the first sentence of para 2 if we REALLY want "Austrian-born” in sentence 1. I understood that nationality at the point of notability was the usual criteria for opening sentence - that would be what we used to have ie German, with "Born in Austria delayed till para 2. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There's discussions in so many archives that it's hard to know what to look at. One reason to leave it in the opening sentence would be so that it appears in the Google search results sidebar, aka Google Knowledge Graph.— Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is here, though it's fairly peremptory. I dimly remember in-depth discussions 3 or 4 years ago, but wasn't able to locate them. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Change suicide wording

'committed suicide' → 'died by suicide' }} Less divisive term, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Definitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holenotahole (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose --FMSky (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The most recent centralized discussion of this issue (that I'm aware of) was this village pump RfC. In short there is no consensus to change uses of 'committed suicide'. Neither is there any prohibition against using an alternate formulation if we build consensus for it here. I support 'died by suicide' or 'killed himself/themselves'. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing divisive about "committed suicide". HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Divisive wasn't my choice of adjective (maybe you're replying to Holenotahole?), but it's at least trivially true. Some support the term and some do not. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s not divisive, it factually describes the choice of act committed by the person. The wording was reached by consensus and there’s no reason to change it. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would we use the passive voice: "died by..." as if it was something that happened to him. It was a deliberate action on his part, so lets use the active voice in describing it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore comments that insist the term is not divisive. If anyone feels I need to respond to any, please let me know at my user talk page. I register HiLo48's support for 'committed', without explanation, and yours, with the reason being it's a factual description of the act. I join Holenotahole in opposing 'committed', with the reasons being well summarized at Suicide#Definitions and supported by the AP Style Book (implies criminality, etc.). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Enabling act votes

I took a closer look at this section and noticed that the text mentions that the position of the Centre Party had been decisive (441 votes for and 84 against) in the passing of this Act. The Centre Party had won 73 seats in the March 1933 elections. Doing simple mathematical equations I noticed that even if the Centre Party voted against the act it still would have passed with 70% of the representatives voting in its favor (368 for and 157 against). Since amendments to the constitution require two thirds of the representatives VOTING AND PRESENT (so basically if the Centre Party voted against the bill: 368/(368+73+84)=70% voting for the passing of the act) is should have passed (as stated here) without the support of the Centre Party. TL;DR; I don't see a logical explanation to why the votes of the Centre Party were decisive.

Another thing I noticed, looking at the table, it clearly states that 444 voted for the act and 94 against it. In this article it says 441 voted for and 84 against which is a bit confusing to me. LukeA1 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)