User talk:Ich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Third Reich and Nazi Germany[edit]

I see you have been replacing the former term with the latter. Is that something you have discussed with others, or is it just your own idea? I don't necessarily disagree with what you are doing, but I think a major, wide-ranging change like this needs to be discussed before enacting it. --John (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is my own initiative and I have not seen any reverts or complaints aside from back-and-forth moves on Art of the Third Reich. I have been meaning to write an essay explaining my full reasons but haven't gotten around to it yet, so I guess this will do as a start. Outside of direct quotes, book titles, etc., I consider it improper to use as a synonym for "Nazi Germany".
The term was adopted as propaganda to legitimize the Nazi Party's seizure of power. From a historical perspective, it is wrong to call the Nazi era a "third Reich": they did not create a new Reich, only seized the remains of the Weimar government, and didn't even bother to rename the country, which had been "German Reich" since Bismarck. The Nazis' historical continuity with the Kaiserreich or the Holy Roman Empire (other than sharing the territory) are debatable, so the term "third" implicitly accepts the Nazi historiography. (The Weimar Republic was referred to as the Zwischenreich - "Interim Reich", so they didn't have to count it as #3).
The term "Drittes Reich" has fallen out of favor since the 80s in German academic circles for these and other reasons. de:Drittes Reich#Begriffsverwendung seit Kriegsende 1945 discusses this further. The term has ideological baggage, and was happily used by former Nazis as a neutral-sounding alternative to the "Nazi terror" or "Hitler dictatorship". (I could also make an admittedly rather weak argument using WP:EUPHEMISM here.)
Aside from the ideological baggage, not all readers may be familiar with the term "Third Reich" but the terms "Nazi Germany", "Nazi era", or even just "Germany" are much more recognizable and emphasize the Nazi Party and government, not just an abstract "Third Reich". Many times, a section header can also be replaced with "German history 1933-1945" or similar. Given two options where one is clear and doesn't have ideological baggage, my choice is clear. Other than avoiding overusing the word "Nazi" in a sentence, I can't think of any good counterarguments in favor of the the term Third Reich. (I suspect the term is popular among authors because it sounds fancier.)
This is something of a personal project for me of my own initiative, like that guy who has been trying to rid Wikipedia of the phrase "comprised of". I can't see any good reasons why "Third Reich" should be used uncritically on Wikipedia in lieu of clearer alternatives. If you see any places where this change reduces the quality of Wikipedia, I would be happy to rework the section. Thanks for noticing my project.-Ich (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for caring about language enough to do this. Having thought about it for a few hours, I find I disagree with you though. Such issues are obviously very nuanced and it is important we do not err in either direction. I don't think this is as clear cut as you suggest. This link suggests that the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC uses Third Reich, then there is the famous William Shirer book which I have on my shelf, which uses both, Third Reich first. I think this subject should be the subject of an RFC and I request you to hold off making any more of these edits of this kind meantime. --John (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi John, I understand if you might not be totally convinced. As far as Risen and Fall... goes, Shirer's book was published in 1960, and while I definitely don't fault him for his choice of words, scholarship has progressed considerably since then: consider that the term "holocaust" as an unqualified noun only slowly came into use in the decades after the war. I'm also not trying to make "Third Reich" into a banned or even discouraged phrase on Wikipedia, but I do find the alternatives preferable. I think these changes still improve Wikipedia, even if I were to rely only on the argument of improved clarity. And, even if it's not an improvement and "Third Reich" is a truly interchangeable term, then at worst, I'm only wasting my own time.-Ich (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Freeh (disambiguation)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Freeh (disambiguation), Ich!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful disambiguation page!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing CFDs[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you implemented the majority view for a discussion in which you had participated, without formally closing it, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_11#Category:Eastern_Orthodox_Christians_opposed_to_the_Third_Reich. This is not good practice. In this case I do not disagree with the result, but in future please wait for an independent editor to close the discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fayenatic Apologies, I wasn't sure how to close the discussion. I will avoid doing this in the future.-Ich (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)