Jump to content

Talk:Adolf Hitler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheCurrencyGuy (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 31 October 2022 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleAdolf Hitler has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
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
December 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Change A to B for the purpose of improving clarity (see below):

A:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who led Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945.

B:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945. Rosedaler (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until Sept 5th this year, it had actually said "was dictator" for quite a long time. It was removed as AH was not initially a "dictator". I agree that "was dictator" or "was the leader" or similar is clearer than the present "who led". I won't make the change though until others have had their say. Do we tolerate the slight inaccuracy of "was dictator from 1933 until … "? Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer "was dictator" as more accurate. "Leader" is actually too neutral a term and lacks precision. (Yes, it is possible for an encyclopedia to be too neutral, and this would be a primary example.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't dictator initially - which was the justification for the recent change. I'm neutral as to leader/dictator and can see dis/advantages to both. Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he was a dictator, but not since his first election win for Chancellor in 1933. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HITLER NEVER WON ELECTION TO CHANCELLOR!! He was appointed by Hinderberg. Yes, his dictatorship can be said to have begun with the Reichstag Fire Decree followed by the Enabling Act, but we're talking about only a matter of 4 weeks as opposed to the vast majority of his rule. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents a process - as is usual in such situations - of Germany going from a (failing?) democracy to a dictatorship. A process wholly completed by the time/when Hindenburg died in August 1934. I personally don't object to the marginal error/simplification of saying that he was dictator from '33, since from the first all actions were in that direction and it was increasingly - de facto - true. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely controversial. Wording difference and details. Rosedaler (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored "was dictator" which may be a slight simplification, but which seems to have no objectors, and was the long-term text.Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to propose the following wording for the introduction. It is probably wise to avoid "dictator" as an introductory term, while his rule was not tempered by the rule of law after President Hindenburg's death, nor was the rule of many other 20th century autocrats such as Stalin, Mao, and Imam Khomeini for instance,
Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German soldier and revolutionary who held the office of führer of the Nazi Party (NSDAP)[a] and took power as chancellor[b] of Germany in 1933. He was the leader of Germany until his death in 1945. His political ideology and policies are known as National Socialism (popularly known as Nazism) and were inspired by fascism, social Darwinism, and the Völkisch movement.
I believe it is important to use the initial sentences of biographical articles to describe the person rather than their deeds. The subsequent parts of the introduction covering the Second World War and the Holocaust are sufficient. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was not primarily known as a soldier or revolutionary, but as dictator of Germany. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed that. I am trying to bring the introduction in line with the introductions to other articles about contentious totalitarian leaders. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're trying to cover too much and in so doing it actually becomes misleading and obscure. MOS:FIRST warns aginst that: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence." The names of a series of political offices and relatively unimportant roles (soldier?) maybe tells the reader facts but doesn't tell the reader who Hitler was. You've made him sound like any other political leader - possibly a democratic one. In plain English, what was he? He was dictator of Germany. That's what the first sentence most importantly needs to say. The detail of offices held etc can follow. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I based it on the introduction to Enver Pasha's article, who was also a genocidal despot.
Here are the introductory passages of articles about leaders I believe are good comparisons to Hitler.
İsmail Enver, better known as Enver Pasha (Ottoman Turkish: اسماعیل انور پاشا; Turkish: İsmail Enver Paşa; 22 November 1881 – 4 August 1922) was an Ottoman military officer, revolutionary, and convicted war criminal[3][4] who formed one-third of the dictatorial triumvirate known as the "Three Pashas" (along with Talaat Pasha and Cemal Pasha) in the Ottoman Empire.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin[c] (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili;[d] 18 December [O.S. 6 December] 1878[5] – 5 March 1953) was a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet political leader who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953). Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.
Mao Zedong[f] (26 December 1893 – 9 September 1976), also known as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which he led as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from the establishment of the PRC in 1949 until his death in 1976. Ideologically a Marxist–Leninist, his theories, military strategies, and political policies are collectively known as Maoism.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're making. For one thing, you could as easily go to those articles and say it should be changed to be more like this one. For another, they're tailored to each subject. It makes total sense for Mao to be described as a revolutionary in that bio, but not for Hitler. Take a look at WP:OTHERCONTENT. DeCausa (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what is Mao primarily known for? You yourself brought up the issue of what a person is primarily known for, and the first thing that springs to mind when Mao is mentioned is that he was dictator of China, the first thing viz Stalin is that he was dictator of the Soviet Union, and the first thing viz Enver Pasha is that he perpetrated the Armenian genocide. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only just added my lnk to WP:OTHERCONTENT so you may have missed it. Unless an article is an WP:FA comparisons like that carry little weight. This article is a WP:GA so is Stalin. The other 2 you cite are a B and a C. Btw, I would say Mao is just as known for his revolutonary role. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Hitler and Mao as historical figures are more alike than you seem to think. Both sought the radical transformation of society through the exercise of unfettered political power by systematically dismantling the political systems that came before them, whether you like it or not that is revolution ("revolutionary" does not mean "good", real life isn't an action movie) TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, Mao is a (literal) poster boy for revolutionaries, not so Hitler (who in fact only participated in one (very small) failed revolution, which (I would argue) most people are not even ware of). And (unlike Mao) he came to power democratically. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slatersteven and do not believe the proposed changes are an improvement and are less accurate as to Hitler, then what is presented and which was well vetted; agreed to by consensus. It must be remembered, TheCurrencyGuy that the lead of an article is to summarize the main points of said article, in this case, Adolf Hitler. Adding that he was a “revolutionary” is not a main point in the body of said article. Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with others. AH isn't primarily known as either a soldier nor revolutionary, but is known as a dictator who initiated WWII and for his role in the Holocaust. I have in the past been involved in RfCs on the Stalin article and was inclined to think it downplayed Stalin's role in the terrorising and slaughter of his own people - which is what he is now primarily remembered for, rather than for any political philosophy, but even so "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS' as DeCausa says isn't a good reason to apply a "one size fits all" approach to people who we may personally feel are equally odious. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I take with this is that the current lede is a description of what he did, not of him as a historical person. Hitler's role in the Second World War and his war crimes are almost certainly known to the majority of readers. A reader will look at the article to learn about who Hitler was and his motivations for his actions.
I've no objection to mentioning the war or the Holocaust in the introduction, but shoehorning it into the very first sentence seems dishonest. Hitler is not like people such as, say, Ted Bundy, who is only well known for crimes he committed. Hitler would still be a notable historical figure without the war crimes or genocide he was responsible for.
I also take objection to the notion that Hitler's rise and exercise of power was not a revolutionary act. While he rose to power through legal channels he then initiated a radical transformation of the whole of German society in line with his worldview. A revolution is a significant shift in the structure of society, whether for good or ill. Regimes such as Hitler's are not like the regimes of conservative autocrats like Franco or Alfredo Strossner who merely sought to maintain what already existed. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:OR I'm afraid. Do most sources focus on the revolutionary nature of his takeover or regime? AFAIK no and I don't even understand the distinction between who the historical person was and what the historical person did. What he did is precisely why he is remembered, not for his thoughts. Certainly AH got the German economy and society going again before WWII, (in part by militarising both), and we record that I hope. We don't assume that readers already know anything about a subject - apart from the fact that very young people read WP - what level of fore knowledge would we assume? We have to tell readers that Shakespeare was an English playwright and poet and where and when he lived and wrote before getting into any more detailed or esoteric info. Similarly for AH who, what, when he lived and his most significant "accomplishments" are in para 1., as they should be. Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it constitutes Original Research to state known facts simply because some trashy pop history sources do not cover it. There have been many works analysing this subject, often from an academic rather than pop history perspective. Wikipedia itself on its revolution article cites Professor Mark N. Katz in stating that Nazi Germany belongs to the "fascist wave" of revolutions that began in Italy in 1922.
The mention of William Shakespeare is actually a good point, it does not immediately cite specific plays or poems he authored, rather it introduces him as an author first, and introducing specific works as and when appropriate. If all the ledes to the articles of contentious historical figures were written in the same way Saddam Hussein's article would introduce his gassing of the Kurds and the Iran-Iraq War before any other important information about him. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some sources describe Hitler as a revolutionary does not mean we are obligated to include it in the opening sentence of this article. We need to discriminate which elements are the most relevant and of the most use to our readers. In Wikipedia, the opening sentence(s) need to describe what makes the person or topic notable. In the case of Hitler, the things he is known for is for being dictator of Germany and leader of the Nazi Party during WWII. Describing him as a "soldier and revolutionary" really misses the mark (it would be like describing JFK as a naval officer and rich guy who later became US president). While discussing Hitler as a revolutionary might be a topic of interest for scholars, it's not appropriate to include it here in this biography (especially in the opening sentence), which is a place for basic information about the topic. You might consider adding sourced content on Hitler's revolutionary views to Political views of Adolf Hitler instead.
So to sum up, I am not in favor of your proposed changes to the lead. — Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with those the oppose the proposal. I'd like to note that the article is currently included in Category:German revolutionaries. If there are high-quality RS that describe him as such, I'd suggest adding them to the body of the article first (I'm not convinced that they'd belong at the political views subarticle) for potential summary in the lead later (not the first sentence). I think removal of his role in genocide from the first paragraph is unwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly willing to amend my proposal to state that AH was:

...an Austrian-born German politician who held the office of führer of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and took power as chancellor of Germany in 1933. He was the leader of Germany until his death in 1945. His political ideology and policies are known as National Socialism (popularly known as Nazism) and were inspired by fascism, social Darwinism, and the Völkisch movement.

I am not totally beholden to the description of him as "soldier and revolutionary", I simply drew inspiration from the initial paragraphs of comparable historical figures. Other leaders responsible for genocide or other politically motivated massacres do not have such a "30-second health warning", so to speak, in the first paragraph. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your new suggested edit doesn't work either, since several people have already stated a preference for the word "dictator". There's a couple other problems I have not yet mentioned: his political ideology and policies are not known as National Socialism; they are known as Nazism or fascism. The party was far-right, not socialist at all (but did initially have some socialist elements and ideas, but only early on). And we can't include "were inspired by fascism, social Darwinism, and the Völkisch movement" because that's not covered in the article or sourced. Everything in the lead has to be covered in the article, since the lead is a summary of the article, and everything in the article must be sourced. — Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what "Nazism" is a contraction of? All of the things I stated were and are common knowledge and are easily demonstrated to be true with the minutest of research. Things like this are why Wikipedia is a joke. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheCurrencyGuy, It isn't the main thrust of Diannaa's argument, but "known as" = "generally referred to as/generally called" as in "William Jefferson Clinton, known as 'Bill' Clinton". Before questioning an other editor's knowledge of basic history, errrr it might be prudent to check you have correctly understood what they actually wrote. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I became frustrated and flew off the handle a bit.
I am still interested in improving the lede. Because it just seems disingenuous and insulting to the reader's intelligence to immediately introduce a historic person as such. Genghis Khan's article does not begin by declaring he was a "warlord who killed an estimated 40 million people". Similarly Hideki Tojo's article does not immediately introduce him as a "dictator who killed x number of people". Dictator too is a problematic term because unless one is discussing Ancient Rome it is always an epithet addressed toward an authoritarian ruler one does not like. For an example of a dictator on the polar opposite end of the spectrum to Hitler, Enver Hoxha is described as the "authoritarian ruler", not "dictator". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Let's add, he was a Vegitarian, a dog lover, was against smoking, etc etc (all of which are in fact well-sourced and have had a cultural impact, in fact, a far greater impact on culture and popular perception than him being a solder or revolutionary (see Reductio ad Hitlerum). Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shirer 1960, pp. 226–227.
  2. ^ Overy 2005, p. 63.
  3. ^ Herzig, edited by Edmund; Kurkchiyan, Marina (2005). The Armenians past and present in the making of national identity. Abingdon, Oxon, Oxford: RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 0203004930. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  4. ^ Andreopoulos, ed. by George J. (1997). Genocide : conceptual and historical dimensions (1. paperback print. ed.). Philadelphia, Pa.: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812216164. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ Kotkin 2014, p. 742, note 25. Starting in about 1920, Stalin gave a birth date of 21 December [O.S. 9] 1879 despite being born on 18 December [O.S. 6] 1878.
  6. ^ "Definition of Mao Tse-tung". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 17 November 2021.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Cowlibob (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler
  • ... that Adolf Hitler was born in Austria and not in Germany like many people believe?
    • Reviewed:

Created by S40052650 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Bavarian Soviet Republic

Hitler supported Bavarian Soviet Republic 31.8.233.237 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Bavarian Soviet Republic#Hitler. Hitler was apparently there as a representative of his army unit. There's no evidence that he personally supported the BSR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&oldid=1119307660"