Talk:Adolf Hitler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 17 June 2019[edit]

It is estimated that between 12 and 13 million POWs and civilians were killed during WW2, not 19 million.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution 213.89.29.16 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The source from the USHMM equals 17 million not 12 or 13 millionJack90s15 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Third lead paragraph issues[edit]

Let's discuss the following fragment from the lead:

In June 1941, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union. By the end of 1941, German forces and the European Axis powers occupied most of Europe and North Africa. In December 1941, shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Hitler declared war on the United States, bringing it directly into the conflict. Failure to defeat the Soviets and the entry of the United States into the war forced Germany onto the defensive and it suffered a series of escalating defeats.

As it stands, while certainly meant well, this is quite misrepresentative of what actually happened. It currently reads as if the decisive factor was the United States joining the war, even though the Germans were, to quote the fragment, already "onto the defensive" in 1943 - more than a year before the United States' entry into the northern European theater at D-Day. I'm not saying they didn't contribute, but it currently reads a bit too much like Hollywood history. Furthermore, neither D-Day nor the Battle of Stalingrad are mentioned, so the reader is left in the dark about how exactly they were pushed back. My proposal is the following:

In June 1941, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union. By the end of 1941, German forces and the European Axis powers occupied most of Europe and North Africa. In December 1941, shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Hitler declared war on the United States, bringing it directly into the conflict. Soviet successes following the decisive Battle of Stalingrad and the successful entry into occupied France by the Western Allies forced Germany onto the defensive and it suffered a series of escalating defeats.

Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see a case for saying that Stalingrad was the turning point in the East, though there had been previous 'failures' by Germany there. But the idea that Germany was not on the defensive in the West until D Day, or not engaged in Europe before then is farcical (Sicily? Italy? Daytime bombing of Germany? Supply of US produce to Soviet and UK 'allies'?). And yes, the full entry of the US into WWII, probably was the factor that made the outcome inevitable - simply because of US industrial might, apart from anything else. That isn't 'Hollywood history', it's just history (and I'm UK and no fan of recent Hollywood output).Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Pincrete on this one. It's not Hollywoodised history to contend that the US's entry into the War was the final turning point for Germany. The Eastern front had reached a virtual stalemate at Stalingrad, at battles such as Borodino and on the outskirts of Moscow, and there was no reason why the Germans would have had to retreat without the Red Army's bolstering by US supplies. Let's not forget that the US's lend-lease policy was essentially the only thing that kept Britain in the War after most of the continent had been occupied. Had it not been for US help, the U-boat campaign would have strangled Britain and brought her to her knees. That's not to say that the Soviets didn't shoulder much of the responsibility for fighting the Germans until the second front - and that can certainly be mentioned - but to deny just how critical the US's industrial capacity was to the Allied war effort is simply ignoring the facts of history.
Cadar (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The United States being a decisive factor is not mentioned in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead either. It wasn't present when the article passed its GA review. I have removed it, and reinserted the wording that was present in the version that passed GA. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
But the immediate prev lead doesn't that either the 'fightback' on the Eastern front nor the US entry were decisive - though of course it strongly implied that they were cumulatively very significant. What we are trying to do is summarise how Germany went from being almost 'masters of Europe', to total surrender, in a few sentences. My objection to Prinsgezinde's proposed text is that it reduces a huge, cumulative turnround, military, industrial and psychological, to two events (one in the east, one in the west). The restored text is slightly the opposite, it simply bypasses any attempt to record the what, why, how (and AH's role in) of the 'turnround' from victor to vanquished. The GA text is within policy, I wonder how informative it is.Pincrete (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually what we're trying to do in the lead is summarize the contents of the article. It's outside the scope of the lead to summarize why the Allies won the war. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
My undo of Prinsgezinde's original edit, which led to this discussion, was due to the same problem as his proposed text, it is too limited in context (as stated in the edit summary), placing undue weight on certain specific events. And as Diannaa states, the lead is to be a concise summary of the body of the article. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

My objection to Prinsgezinde's proposed text is that it reduces a huge, cumulative turnround, military, industrial and psychological, to two events (one in the east, one in the west).

I get that, and I can somewhat agree, but what I don't get is how the fragment I objected to was significantly different. It also implied two specific (series of) events forced Germany onto the defensive. I was specifically trying not to change too much. Furthermore, it was unclear if "the entry of the United States into the war" was about the legal entry on December 1941 or the moment the US started to support the Allies. Pincrete, and Cadar mentioned US supplies to the Soviets as being decisive, but the US had already been providing said aid since before they joined the war. In any case, I think the version that has been reverted to by Diannaa is a major improvement. I have no objections to it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Actually what we're trying to do in the lead is summarize the contents of the article". Well yes, of course, and it must be very succinct, but to leap from 1941 to 1945, in a single sentence as though nothing worth mentioning happened in between and without attempting to cover AH's responsibility for what happened seems to me to be cutting too close to the bone. If others are happy, I'm not going to make a fuss, since the GA text is certainly succinct! Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to provide a blow-by-blow account of every beat of the War in the lead. As it stands right now, it's fine.

And just to clarify: I didn't explicitly state that I'm aware of the fact that lend-lease was occurring before the US's entry into the War because anyone who knows the details of the War's history understands that lend-lease was in full operation long before the Germans declared war on the US. As far as I'm concerned, mentioning lend-lease at all should automatically imply knowledge of it; stating that I personally was aware of the details was therefore redundant.

Cadar (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

National Socialist German Workers' Party or Nazi Party in the infobox[edit]

I think we need to be perfectly clear that Adolf Hitler was a Nazi, and need to show Nazi Party in the infobox. National Socialist German Workers' Party is not a good substitute, as it glosses over his true affiliation and is in fact a redirect to the common name, which is Nazi Party. Comments welcome — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think anyone who doesn't know that Hitler was a Nazi has been living under a rock, but that's irrelevant, as is a need to explicitly state that he was a Nazi, which is only an abbreviation of the correct term. This is the equivalent of having an article about a Republican president and stating that he was a member of the GOP. Yes, it would be correct, but it's merely common-use slang for the correct term, which is "Republican party." We need to use the correct names for things in Wikipedia's articles, not slang; or in this case, their nearest English translation. If you insist on equating "Nazi" with "National Socialist German Worker's Party", then you can add the abbreviation in brackets after the correct term. That would be acceptable, but replacing the term with the abbreviation is not.

Cadar (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have returned the instance in the first paragraph of the lead to the correct name, which absolutely should be used in the introduction about the man; the same with the infobox, which should use correct names. Until we have reached consensus on whatever usage is acceptable for the article, please leave it as is.

For the record: I absolutely oppose replacing instances of the English translation of the correct name to abbreviated or slang versions. I will accept bracketed inclusion of the shorter version after the use of the correct name to reduce confusion, but the abbreviation is not a replacement for the correct name under any circumstances. This is an encyclopaedia; our role here as editors requires us to use the correct names for organisations in the articles. It's that simple.

Cadar (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Please do not make further changes on this subject until consensus has been reached. Thank you.

Cadar (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Its not "slang" ... it's the common English language name for the party. Having a German name that most folks won't recognize instead of the common name is just plain silly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I knew this was going to happen. I sat up till 2:30 this morning dealing with this, but I had to sleep, and I knew as I went to bed that the second my back was turned, someone would just go ahead and change it again. So my choices seem to be three: accept that nobody editing this page understands the concept of "consensus" and that mob rule is the norm here; start an edit war; or walk away and dump this in the lap of an administrator.
Actually, the term Nazi is slang. It's German slang for the correct name of the party, which was unwieldy in common usage. It's slang in current usage today. The fact that some people understand that it was also associated with Hitler does not justify its use to replace the name of the organisation he started. And the fact is that 99% of people who know the term and the association with the man do not know the correct name of the organisation. These are already more than enough reasons for the change.
Secondly, the term is loaded in modern context. It's an insult. It is used in terms such as "grammar Nazi." It has acquired a whole load of associations and emotions, exactly none of which are relevant to the man or the article about him. It was the reason for this stupid edit in the first place. For those reasons alone, it's not defensible on a neutral encyclopaedia, which is concerned with historical facts. And the historical facts are that the organisation he started had a proper name which should absolutely and only be used at the first mention in the first line of the article about the man who created the organisation. It actually completely blows my mind that I even have to spell this out. I tried a compromise which would serve the primary role of supplying the correct and accurate information to the reader as well as adding the slang term in brackets, but no: mob rule.
I'm done. I'm taking this to mediation and removing this page from my watch list. It can now be deleted as far as I'm concerned, because quite frankly I just don't care any longer. I've already wasted more than enough of my time on this idiocy. Cadar (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It may be slang in German, but it's not in English. Please stop treating the wording of the infobox as a battleground - infobox arguments are among the least productive on WIkipedia, and please tone it down - "idiocy" and "mob" have no place in this discussion. Additionally, administrators do not arbitrate content, so the only way it will end up in the lap of an adminstrator is if there's edit-warring. The three administrators you're talking to here on the talkpage are acting as regular editors. For my part, I don't mind a parenthetical reference - but some clear acknowledgement of the common name is required for straightforward understanding. I've adjusted the comments here, since it looks like you were editing the whole page for a while and the subsequent edit conflict took out my previous comment and another. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be 3 to 1 against Cadar's version so I am re-implementing my edit. "Nazi Party" is the common name used in English. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 02:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
While WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, normal practice is to apply commonly used names to people and organizations, so that most users can easily grasp the context without having to remind themselves that the German title really means Nazis. We call the Native American Party the Know Nothings, for instance. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Discernment, rational and consensus are what needs to be used. And I believe it has been. While I am not always in favor of the use of "common name" for certain titles and words, I believe in this case the common name (which, is also used for the article title for English Wikipedia) should be used. We write for the general public and many times for the uninformed reader. For other GA rated articles, such as Joseph Goebbels, "Nazi Party (NSDAP)" is used. In addition, the full party name is spelled out in the lead section and spelled out with explanation in the body section: "Entry into politics". That is sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the formal name over the slang term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" per Diannaa. We should use the common name.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" per Kierzek's rationale: "the full party name is spelled out in the lead section and spelled out with explanation in the body section: "Entry into politics". That is sufficient." Infobox and text should use common name therafter ('Nazi' isn't really 'slang', rather an abbreviated, albeit non-formal, portmanteau term, like Brexit). Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party", the name by which the vast majority of people know that group. The only purpoose to using NSDAP is to attempt to soften the impact of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party". By far the most common name. And the main article on the ideology is Nazism, not "national socialism". Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" per both rationales provided by Diannaa and Kierzek.--Obenritter (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" that is the name most people use. Jack90s15 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Use whatever name is used by the sources. Underneaththesun (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Nazi per Dianna’s and BMK’s rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 11:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's pretty well known that Hitler was a "Nazi", so it's not really softening it by using the full name rather than the shortened version of it. Perhaps use "National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi)". Swil999 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Nazi Party is the most common English usage. Stick with it. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)