Jump to content

Talk:Adolf Hitler: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 61: Line 61:
It seems to me that the article is perfectly readable, and most people accessing this page will be wanting access to all info at once, rather than separate articles which may be overly frustrating having to access several articles. I suggest we get rid of the banner given that, with Hitler being an individual, not an historical period, a single article makes more sense, and we can always clean up if necessary; it's only really the rearmament and alliance section which is too long. What're your thoughts? [[User:Crease7|Crease7]] ([[User talk:Crease7|talk]]) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article is perfectly readable, and most people accessing this page will be wanting access to all info at once, rather than separate articles which may be overly frustrating having to access several articles. I suggest we get rid of the banner given that, with Hitler being an individual, not an historical period, a single article makes more sense, and we can always clean up if necessary; it's only really the rearmament and alliance section which is too long. What're your thoughts? [[User:Crease7|Crease7]] ([[User talk:Crease7|talk]]) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:I agree that it's readable, but even with DSL, the page loads slowly, especially when editing it. When I was cleaning up the images, the page froze up a few times. I haven't had a chance to read the assessment notes to why the article got de-listed, but maybe there would be some suggestions there too. I'll look into it when I get a chance. Thanks, --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
:I agree that it's readable, but even with DSL, the page loads slowly, especially when editing it. When I was cleaning up the images, the page froze up a few times. I haven't had a chance to read the assessment notes to why the article got de-listed, but maybe there would be some suggestions there too. I'll look into it when I get a chance. Thanks, --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I also like things all on one page. I absolutely agree - don't split it into annoying sections. But some of the sections on the page are just way too long. Just huge uninviting blocks of text. I think some of the sections could be reduced by half their length. [[User:Andrewthomas10|Andrewthomas10]] ([[User talk:Andrewthomas10|talk]]) 22:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


== Citation Badly Needed ==
== Citation Badly Needed ==

Revision as of 22:00, 3 June 2011

Former good articleAdolf Hitler was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Controversial (history)

Length and Readability

It seems to me that the article is perfectly readable, and most people accessing this page will be wanting access to all info at once, rather than separate articles which may be overly frustrating having to access several articles. I suggest we get rid of the banner given that, with Hitler being an individual, not an historical period, a single article makes more sense, and we can always clean up if necessary; it's only really the rearmament and alliance section which is too long. What're your thoughts? Crease7 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's readable, but even with DSL, the page loads slowly, especially when editing it. When I was cleaning up the images, the page froze up a few times. I haven't had a chance to read the assessment notes to why the article got de-listed, but maybe there would be some suggestions there too. I'll look into it when I get a chance. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also like things all on one page. I absolutely agree - don't split it into annoying sections. But some of the sections on the page are just way too long. Just huge uninviting blocks of text. I think some of the sections could be reduced by half their length. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Badly Needed

4.3. The Holocaust

"Göring gave a written authorisation to Heydrich to "make all necessary preparations" for a "total solution of the Jewish question". To make for smoother cooperation in the implementation of this "Final Solution", the Wannsee conference was held on 20 January 1942, with fifteen senior officials participating (including Adolf Eichmann) and led by Reinhard Heydrich. The records of this meeting provide the clearest evidence of planning for the Holocaust. On 22 February, Hitler was recorded saying to his associates, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews"."

Needs citation or at least a [citation needed] at its end.

March, 7th, 2011 - 7:35 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absconditus87 (talkcontribs) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

I thought Adolf Hitler was in World War II not World War I Cafeolay2 (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was a minor officer in the German Army in WWI, and started WWII. That's about it. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was not an "officer" but a Gefreiter (Lance Corporal) in WWI. Kierzek (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek, Lance Corporal is a non-commissioned officer, albeit the lowest ranked one there is.Hoops gza (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but when one uses the word "officer" it implies, one of commissioned rank; I should have been more clear and said-he was not a "commissioned officer". Kierzek (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So did the military uniform he wore in WWII signify any rank?Straw Cat (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler birthplace

Really Braunau? Offically, definitiv? Legal source? Just like the Obama issue, but well you know... --91.115.54.120 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Frankenberger

Is there any evidence that Leopold Frankenberger ever existed? If there isn't, that probably should be mentioned in the article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no evidence. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a (sourced) way to add that to the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are included here Leopold Frankenberger. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Solublefawn, 31 May 2011

I am a renouned historian and teacher at the caimbridge university in yorkshire, England. I have been studying Hitler and nazi germany for over 10 years now and have discovered some very interesting information about Hitlers private life and his thoughts and aspirations. I now wish to show that information to the world, i hope that people can have a better understanding of what really went on inside Adolf Hitler's mind.


Solublefawn (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding... I've marked this request as answered for what I hope are obvious reasons. —James (TalkContribs)10:14pm 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! I kinda thought the misspellings were a little weird, after all, coming from a renowned historian... :-) --Funandtrvl (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

The article on Henry Ford says that Ford did not finance the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.54.221 (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Kurt Ludecke says clearly that Ford refused to produce any money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.54.221 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable paragraph

"In his first four years of government the number of unemployed dropped from 6 million to 900 thousand people, the gross national product grew 102%, he doubled the per capita income, augmented companies' profits from 175 million to 5 billion reichsmarks and reduced hyperinflation to a maximum of 25% a year.[citation needed]"

Should this paragraph be struck? In addition to no references given, it is preposterous to imagine that any head of state, no matter how powerful, personally "doubled per capita income, augmented companies' profits [...] and reduced hyperinflation [...]." 89.204.137.234 (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just see the section on Mefo Bills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills) to discover how the German economic improvement was based purely on debt. However, the economy did undoubtedly improve. As to whether the paragraph should be removed - well, the raw facts might actually be correct, but it constantly uses the word "he" as though Hitler had any knowledge or involvement! It was not due to Hitler, though, who, according to Laurence Rees's book "The Nazis" knew "next to nothing about economic theory". The improvement was down to Hjalmar Schacht who Hitler appointed Economics Minister and gave him complete control of the economy. And the improvement was based on debt. Unless a citation is given, I think the paragraph should just be cut. It's shockingly badly written and inaccurate. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]