Talk:Hitler Has Only Got One Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Songs (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 

Origin of the Song[edit]

There's something wrong in the first line: "wrote the original in August 1939. British propaganda;[1] Toby O'Brien ..." Maybe it's meant to be "wrote the original in August 1939 for British propaganda;[1] Toby O'Brien ..." --Masonmilan (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the typo, but it also has a dead reference, all the cites I could find were either copies of, or led back to, the Wikipedia entry. I don't suppose Donough O'Brien's autobiography is on the web somewhere citeable? - Syd (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Unsourced"? Looks like the source is folk memory in general[edit]

It seems to me that the source of many of the versions of "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" is folk memory, as opposed to any one work of literature. Many of the Wikipedia contributors apparently learned it as kids long ago, and wrote it down here out of interest. I am unsure whether to consider it WP:OR, as those people learned the lyrics from someone else, such as a teacher or a mentor (or even their schoolyard friends and/or bullies). — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 14:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, context such as "as sung in Australia by schoolchildren in the 1950s and '60s" and "as sung in New Zealand in the 1940s and 1950s" suggests that a lot of this may be down to passing editors just adding "well, here's how I remember it". Which is an interesting insight into folk memory, but Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting it as fact - it's quite possible to misremember such lyrics after fifty years, or for the version sung at one Australian school to be entirely unrepresentative. If it's not been seriously written about, it's WP:OR.
Folk memory can be sourced: if someone's written a book about this kind of thing, interviewing people about what they remember, taking quotes and carefully framing it all in a wider context, it would be a great source to use for this article. (Hopkins' Songs from the Front & Rear used for one variant actually seems like a fair source, I missed it when blanking the variants.) But "I was an Australian schoolboy in the 1950s and this is how I remember it" isn't an appropriate way to write an encyclopedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
When I was an Australian schoolboy in the 1950s we wrote encyclopedias that way. 76.111.244.85 (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I contributed lots to this article in the early wikipedia days and they wouldn't let me get a single one of my versions of the lyrics in, very responsible in retrospect. You can find it in the History. Ortolan88 (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hoax?[edit]

Who has verified what prominent sources? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080634/soundtrack?ref_=tt_ql_trv_7 suggests the first/ most prominent claim, re. Bette Middler singing it in Divine Madness, is a hoax, and the talk page archive indicates there have been other, since-removed hoaxes. I somewhat suspect the whole thing. I see evidence of involvement of a hoax creator. I see "Did you even bother to read it or check any of the external links or the discussion page?" asked by an admin during the deletion discussion (which is still open years later!) I checked the EL. I see only one EL that looks potentially informative regarding whether this is a hoax, and though it's dead, it's archived here. [edit: The 70's-era cite I just added to Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism convinces me it's probably not a hoax.]--{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 04:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Midler, it's not an official track. She sings it in an aside at about 20 minutes in. You can see it on Youtube. As for the rest, I've no clear idea what you think might be a "hoax". Paul B (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

De Gaulle has no balls at all[edit]

"De Gaulle has no balls at all."

This is the last line the kids sang in the playground in my Toronto, Canada school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.16.77 (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Balls....[edit]

According to the source provided by User:Carol Fenijn, The Führer did have two balls, but suffered, according to one report, from Cryptorchism, an undescended testicle. This claim, however, is also contradicted by several other reports. I hereby invite User:Carol Fenijn to clarify her position. Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kleuske, as on the nl: wikipedia, I think your feedback lacks some nuance. 13:59, 19 December 2015‎ Kleuske (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,993 bytes) (-265)‎ . . (According to the source, that's exactly what the good professor did *not* say. He claims Cryptorchism (Two balls). Undid revision 695900210 by Carol Fenijn (talk)) (undo | thank) If one of the balls does not descend and whithers away, that might actually be the basis for the assertion that Hitler only had one ball. Of course you could argue the other ball was also still there. Carol Fenijn (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
We're not here to discuss nuance. We're here to discuss the claims you made in the article.
The source does not claim Hitlers testicles Withered away. The source does not claim any connection to this song or any basis for "the assertion that Hitler only had one ball". The source does state other reports found "nothing wrong" with his genitalia.
Hence, the statement that "According to research by Professor Peter Fleischmann of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg this song may be based on actual medical fact." is hokum. The professor said nothing about this song. Chances are that the song is based on a strong desire to ridicule ones enemy. Kleuske (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kleuske. I think it is an assumption of you that the professor said nothing about the song. As I just wrote on nl: wikipedia I used various sources besides the Guardian and Bild, and it is certainly not my own conclusion. However, it is possible that journalists have copied each other's work. As far as that is concerned, it is ok with me to wait until more is concrete w.r.t. the evidence, but I think my initial approach was also fine, mentioning it in a careful way, not making any absolute claims about the matter, and referring to a source. Carol Fenijn (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
As long as the sources are saucy articles in various newspapers, there's insufficient grounds for your claims. Moreover it's not me who has to show the articles do not say anything about this song, it's your job to a) show that they do and b) that Bild (a German tabloid) is a reliable source. Lastly, I am highly skeptical about any sudden revelation about private details of Hitlers life, especially when they're based on documents that appeared out of nowhere almost a century after the facts.
I am also disappointed that I have to have this discussion on two Wikipedia's. Kleuske (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kleuske, the reason why you are having this discussion on two wikipedia's is the fact, that you reverted my edit while the discussion on nl: wiki was still in progress! I think it is better to await the outcome of such a discussion before proceeding, but anyway, that is your choice... As I wrote, it is ok with me to wait until more is concrete w.r.t. the evidence. I do think you should be consistent and remove all references to the Guardian, maybe with a bot, from wikipedia, if you think that is not a valid source! I did consult various sources besides der Bild and the Guardian. New discoveries are made very regularly, that is why they are called discoveries. If they are referred to in a careful way, not making any absolute claims, that should be fine IMHO. I do hope more people will want to participate in this discussion. You reverted a similar edit of another editor earlier today. Cheers, Carol Fenijn (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Again... Bold, Revert, Discuss. Please, read it carefully.
  2. The dutch Wikipedia is the dutch Wikipedia This is not. Please do not confuse the two.
  3. I do not care how many sources you consulted if all those sources basically parrot the original press-release. News about Hitlers Testicles is always a juicy tidbit, whatever the reliability.
  4. The last "new discovery" about A. Hitler were his infamous diaries. I suspect this news item has the same historical significance and veracity.
  5. Claims by a single historian who (allegedly) found documents in a fleamarket should be taken cum grano salis and are not in and of themselves notable, especially if those claims lack any form of critical consideration by others in the field and flatly contradict several eye-witness accounts. If those claims are reproduced with an implicit appeal to authority, even more so.
Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kleuske, implying that I do not read carefully and I confuse two wikipedias is quite arrogant, please stop that negative tone, it is not necessary at all! I stated various times that it is ok with me to wait until more is concrete w.r.t. the evidence, as soon as that is the case, I think it is worth while to pursue this further! But I do hope others will actually take my side and also find it worth mentioning in the article, if necessary in different wording! Given the fact that you reverted a similar edit of another editor, I suspect I am not the only one with this point of view! Cheers, Carol Fenijn (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Great, a new source was just added to the article, it has only been online for 3 hours or so: http://news.yahoo.com/records-show-hitler-enjoyed-special-treatment-prison-134212880.html Carol Fenijn (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said. Any juicy news about Hitler is a nice tidbit for the holiday season and it merely states "appears to confirm" and for the rest reiterates what was already commonly known before WW-II. At least this time it wasn't in the lede. Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of this discussion. The song and its use as propaganda is the main thrust of this article. However, the fact that Hitler had one undescended testicle is relevant, as it is part of the context in which the song arose. Relevancy is in the eyes of the beholder. While one could noodle around Kleuske's opinion is not a WP:Consensus on this page. (Pun intended.) Ipse dixit doesn't apply. 7&6=thirteen () 13:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The text you removed was understated, appropriate and cited: "A book published in 2015 asserts that Hitler in fact had monoirchism."[1] 7&6=thirteen () 13:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jordans, Frank (December 22, 2015). "Records show Hitler enjoyed special treatment in prison". Berlin. Associated Press. Retrieved December 22, 2015. 
The problem is that it is not a "fact", it's a claim made in a very recently published book. The one critical article i've read so far ("Beweringen en Bewijzen", Max Pam, de Volkskrant) is also highly skeptical. The whole story is, apparanty, based on one document which magically surfaced after nearly a century. There's a lesson to be learned from Hitlers Diaries: do not take claims in the press at face value, especially if it flatly contradicts various eye-witness accounts. Mentioning this and leaving out other reports isn't balanced. We're an encyclopedia and not supposed to be parroting the latest sayso by some pressrelease, especially when dealing with historical subjects. Kleuske (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Besides, You misquote your own source, which states "Fleischmann's 552-page book also appears to confirm a British WWII-era joke about Hitler." (emphasis mine). Kleuske (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't a quote.
Then we could put in the contrary analysis and opinion. That would be alright with me. However, I would say that an extended discussion about the fact then treads closer to WP:Undue. I think the whole thing merits at most a short paragraph with a sentence or two tops. 7&6=thirteen () 13:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the book/pressrelease was published just a few days ago, there's no real expectation of any critical reviews. One claim by one historian does not make notability, especially if any form of critical review is missing. It makes WP:RECENTISM with a hint of WP:ADVERTISING.
I would appreciate it if you refrain from puns on my username. It does not help your argument. Kleuske (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
No offense intended. You are right. It is of no moment whatsoever, and was a mere digression. No offense intended. I happen to like noodles, one of the five basic food groups.
Wikipedia is serious business. Of course, I don't even know that is your name (in the real world), but you can feel free to mock "7&6=thirteen" if that would help. Happy holidays to you. {:<{)> 7&6=thirteen () 14:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I reorganized the edit. Please take a look. We could put in a contrary source. 14:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You agree, above, the mention is non-notable and yet you accuse me of editwarring? Reorganising does not help. Especially in this article, the claim made isn't relevant, since it does not have any bearing on the song. Unless you are willing to claim that UK-troops were somehow privied to Hitlers private parts. I note that you carefully avoid adressing any of the arguments made. Kleuske (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
More claims made, {{source}} tags added. Please back up your claims. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you noted my comment about WP:3RR, so there is no later question about your state of mind. I was not accusing you, so please don't be defensive. We need to fix the problem, not fix the blame.
The state of mind or knowledge of British troops is even less relevant.
I would like to put in pro and con within reason. It is related. You have expressed some very real concerns. We need to work together to find a solution. Besides pretending that this subject doesn't exist, what would you propose? I am trying to WP:BRD. We need to discuss and come to a consensus.
The input of other interested editor might help and is invited. 7&6=thirteen () 14:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
We were discussing before you arrived on the scene. Again i note you avoid addressing any of the issues I raised. If you want to WP:BRD then provide some arguments instead of assumptiopn on my "mental state", puns on my username and accusations. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)