Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 7

message: Someone asked why the word's been called redundant... it's also used at the end of the article. I'd noticed it before and decided I didn't care, although normally an adjective like that shouldn't be repeated in a single article. Maybe substitute loathed or hated for one of them? It's certainly accurate. Wyss 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed that "reviled" was used again at the end. The lead section, acting as it does as an introduction to and summary of the rest of the article can repeat some of what follows. I don't have a problem with the repetition of the word "reviled", and "loathed" or "hated" are not quite synonymous. Paul August  ☎ 13:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I not only dislike the redundancy and repitition, but feel that the placement in that particular sentance is poor prose. Neutrality is also an issue, no matter how unpopular the individual in question (and Hitler is arguably the most unpopular individual in history) we should strive to present them fairly, allowing the reader to form their own opinions. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, there certainly is, and his name is apparently Dana? Would you like to form a user account? Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. We all peer review each others work here, and since you are now involved this far, you have just as much right to verify information as anybody else. You don't have to form a user account, but it helps alot if you want to do stuff like edit. As far as your questions, I have no idea, a good % of what I know about Hitler is already in the article, the rest is mainly conjecture, as any stories about his upbringing are certain to be. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: About AH's relationship with his father Alois, it was "normal" for boys at that time and place to receive punishment in the form of beatings (this sounds odd and cruel to most of us today). While young Adolph had arguments with his father, and was teased by him (again, not unusual) drawing any sort of causality between the sort of parental discipline he recieved and his later behavior is utter speculation. In principle, it's probably more significant that Alois died when Hitler was on the cusp of his teens but again, drawing a relationship between that event and AH's later life is ultimately guesswork. Taken as a whole, the disarray of his family and the early deaths of his parents probably played their part, and the article includes the documented facts pertaining to that. Wyss 00:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviled 

message: I mistakenly thought there had been a consensus for that. I prefer encouraged since promoted sounds like he was selling soap (which he was but that's another story). Let there be no doubt he was behind it... they obviously avoided a paper trail at the time and/or burned it. I also removed a repeated sentence, artifact of the rounds of editing this AM I guess. Wyss 13:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word ''allowed'' 

message: * Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends.  I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE VOTE

message: # I removed the Krockow paragraph about secrecy over Hitler's life, as it smacks of original research (a wiki no-no) and reads like a badly written college sophomore's term paper.  
# I removed the statement that Hitler was born "around 18:30 LMT" - who knows that? is it on his birth certificate?  I find it speculatory and vague, and I doubt it will ever be verifiable.
# I reorganized some of the section divisions in the article, as we had one title saying "biography", which had nothing to do with biography...just original research interpretations.  I organized Biography into the section entitle "early life" putting "Childhood" "Early Years Vienna and Munich" and "First World War" as subsections.
We really have to pare down this bio...it's out of hand and just tries to accomplish too much...including aggrandizing insignificant detail. —ExplorerCDT 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that you again ignored that I asked for discussing some points and you just undid my changes. I wonder whether the talk page tells us more about dictatorship and democracy than the article. I saw in RequestedMove you called somebody an "annoying little gnat" 2 times with no reason, just because he/she asked for a discussion. Anyway, I take a time out, I was very upset to see the page two weeks ago because it was just so bad and I did a lot of changes. I see the page got better a lot. A lot of more changes are needed and I wanted to see for some, but I don't see a positive atmosphere and I don't have the time to just argue with some people who don't have the necessary understanding of democratic procedures or just culture of discussion. You can change whatever you like, I am in time out. ben 07:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
* That kid has been annoying for the last three weeks.  Not just twice.  Discussion is o.k., I like discussion. But when things are glaringly wrong, I have no compunction whatsoever about making them right. —ExplorerCDT 07:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent edits

message: As some of us have agreed, the bio needs to be pared down...not with regard to content, but in superfluous writing, awkward construction and insignificant detail.  I'm more than happy to start, but I'd like to seek your guidance before embarking on what may be perceived as too disruptive an endeavour.  Comments? Suggestions?  Things you'd like to see added or removed? —ExplorerCDT 15:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paring down the Biography

message: why his edits were reverted? i think his edits were fain. --Haham hanuka 15:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been a "kid" for almost two decades and you can check Wikipedia:List of administrators to see for yourselves that i am indeed an admin - aside from that yes i didn't look at the talk page and yes i should have before i acted. PMA 23:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[203.36.44.13]] 

message: i think that the History of Gays during the Holocaust is not related to this article, someone oppose for removing this links? also the external link "The Straight Dope: Was Hitler part Jewish?" should be removed (Rotten.com was removed). --Haham hanuka 16:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sam. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok i'll remove only the links to the "History of Gays during the Holocaust". --Haham hanuka 11:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Truth be told I do agree that the link about gays may be a bit gratuitous when one uses Sam Spade's reasoning. Comment: It's been my impression that one of AH's biggest issues with homosexuality was that he perceived it as an impediment to baby production (necessary for his vision of pan-Germanic expansion and redemption). It's also interesting that the leadership of the SA was populated by many gays when Hitler purged it, although his reasons for doing so seem to have been political. I imagine he also viewed "gay culture" (as we might call it today) as intrinsically subversive to what he was trying to accomplish. Wyss 11:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, homosexuality wasn't a big theme of Hitler's at all, but he was of course perfectly happy to have them sent off to the camps along with whoever else public opinion made it expediant to be against. Its very telling that he waited until the last possible moment to purge Ernst Röhm, whom he personally liked and respected a great deal. The purge of Röhm and other "homosexuals" (I'm far from convinced their was anything more to that allegation than slander) had far more to do with the working class nature and leftist leanings of the SA and other Strasserists within the Nazi party than anything else. It was a power play, rather than a crackdown on homosexuality, IMO. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not homosexuality was common in the SA leadership by the time of the purge (I infer it was, from various accounts, aside from the scandal-mongering before and after), while assertive/visible gays obviously had grave difficulties like any divergent group, I'd say we agree AH never seemed to focus on the issue. Wyss 04:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  irrelevant links 

message: Why in the world was thec olor photo removed at the start of ths article?  It was one of the best pictures of Hitler I've seen. C an we bring it back? -Husnock 8MAr05
It was a great character study with lots of interesting detail and added something to the article. Unfortunately, it seems to have been a copyright violation. Wyss 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color Photo 

message: Having extensively re-written the article on Hitler's father Alois Hitler (mostly for syntax and style), I realized that there were some minor errors about Alois in the main article. It was Alois who appeared before the priest, making an affidavit that his step-father was his biological father. I've also clarified the language about this in general: Hitler's grandfather was likely one of the Hiedler brothers (one married Alois' mother, the other played a huge role in raising him). The Frankenberger story (from which the "Hitler was Jewish" rumours have come) is now presented plainly as an interesting rumour with no basis in documented fact. Wyss 18:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alois Corrections 

message: I've inserted a brief mention of this because it may provide some interesting character (or family) insight, and gives more context to his constant financial struggles in Vienna after his mother died. Wyss 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paula and the orphan's pension 

message: I've at last taken this content out of the legacy section (where it certainly didn't fit) and created a new article for it, Hitler and the church, as previously discussed here. I suspect this new article will get filled out and cleaned up over time. Wyss 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler and the church 

message: Presented only for the amusement of readers of this talk page...
Ever since I was about twelve and saw a few paintings by AH in some book for the first time, I thought he had mild talent as a painter... above average, so to speak, even pleasing with buildings, landscapes and plants but oddly inept, even "creepy" when drawing people (maybe I wouldn't have said it that way when I was twelve, but I remember thinking it). Anyway, along with working on some of these AH-related articles during the past week, I stumbled across a website (linked from the main one here) with lots of AH paintings I'd never seen before. As usual, I found myself "sort of" liking some of them, but was slightly uncomfortable with his drawings of people (bear in mind, it's always hard for me to mentally disassociate AH artifacts from images of the camps and so on).
I should add that for me, most painters don't paint people with the convincing, stirring flair of a Waterhouse, Rockwell, Draper, Hacker or Dali, to name some broadly put "contemporaries" of AH with whom one might even begin to draw some sort of comparison.
So I chose a few scans of AH paintings that didn't involve people (flowers, buildings and landscapes), arranged them on the monitor display, made sure his name wasn't showing anywhere and called out to my friend who graduated from a respected European college with a four-year degree in fine arts... as a painter.
Me: So what do think of these?
Friend: Hmmm... wow!
Me: You like them?
Friend: These are great! Super!
After looking at them together for a minute or so, my friend paused, and said,
"These are by Adolf Hitler, aren't they?"
"Yep."
"They were crazy for rejecting him from art school."
I opened a few scans of architectural sketches by AH. The response was similar... talented and so on.
I brought up some portrait sketches of heads by AH.
Me: They're ok, I guess. About like any decent sketch artist at Montmartre...
Friend: Oh, better than that.
Finally, I brought up an AH nude (which I find slightly creepy), and while my friend liked it more than I did, we agreed the head was too small, among other details.
Either way, I think I can understand somewhat why he felt resentment at being rejected (twice) from attending a major art school. I think I can also see why someone told him he should try architecture. As his sister Paula said after the war, would that he had... Wyss 22:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Uncontrolled Experiment - AH's Paintings 

message: Is this section of the article really necessary...after all, despite omitting the rumoured trips to England in 1937/38 the drives through Prague, the trip to Italy, and a few others I can think of off the cuff, the section only has one entry that would probably be placed better in the WWII writeup and not as an autonomous section. —ExplorerCDT 16:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Visits abroad

message: Wyss, we're talking about the introduction to the article, the part that's supposed to provide a summary of the article.  If you agree that he is widely reviled, let's put it in the intro.
I said the intro implied he was remembered only for "his charisma, his political acumen, and the fact that he was on the losing side in a big war."  I say that because that's what the intro says.  It mentions "racial policies", but it doesn't mention genocide.  It says he "encouraged" racial policies, but it doesn't say that he, Adolf Hitler, as his country's leader, was one of those who planned and executed the killing of millions of people on grounds of race (and for other reasons, such as eugenics).  Again you appeal to detail in the article  that reveal highly significant facts that aren't presented in the intro.
Finally we're here to write an encyclopedia article, not to write a didactic piece or a polemic.  The introduction should contain a mention (not an evaluation) of Hitler's legacy, because that is the most significant remaining thing about his influence in the modern world--whether rightly or wrongly--as a symbol of evil, often a caricature.  That's a highly significant fact about Hitler that doesn't (remarkably) attach itself so readily to butchers whose deeds were probably the equal of, or exceeded, Hitler's.  Mao and Stalin pale into insignificance in the public mind, it's Hitler we remember as the terrible architect of genocide.  That fact belongs in the introduction.  We can make it as neutral as possible, but we shouldn't weasel it away.   --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviled

message: "Can't write an intro to Hitler without mentioning genocide"
Should we mention the "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" in the beginning of the article when we write intro to Harry S. Truman? 
--Haham hanuka 13:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Doesn't the current article on Truman do so? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: An anonymous user using various IPs starting with 83.109.*.* keeps readding the same content over and over without first consulting or replying on the talk page, and despite repeated reversions.  -- BRIAN0918  12:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  83.109.*.*

message: I had a discussion with Tony Sidaway on IRC, and it seemed his problem with the intro saying "the Holocaust" was that it left out "genocide", which according to him is "the most important word".  Another problem for him was that the word "holocaust", according to him, didn't come into popular usage as being the word for the 1945 genocide until the 1970s, and the word was popular before then.  My problem with his version was that it didn't link directly to The Holocaust, leaving out an important link.  So, we agreed that the best way to clear this up would be to use the term which is accepted by Jews and by the Catholic Church as being the proper word for "The Holocaust"  (they don't prefer "holocaust" because its original meaning, as is used in the Bible, is that of a "burnt offering [to a god]", implying that the Nazis was in fact doing the proper work of the Judeo-Christian God.)  Since "Shoah" is accepted by two major groups (and arguably the most important groups in this event as far as religion and the origins of anti-Semitism are concerned), and since Shoah links directly to The Holocaust, it is probably the best choice, despite the term not being commonly used among laypeople. -- BRIAN0918  21:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to have become a party to what may seem odd--a discussion on IRC that is cited as influencing an edit on Wikipedia.  I just told Brian that I didn't find Shoah, which was Brian's suggestion, an unreasonable word to use, although I think it's not as common a word as Holocaust, and that in any case I think the word genocide should be specifically included in any introduction to Adolf Hitler.  The word holocaust, although it has specific meanings with respect to the Shoah, also has a more general meaning.  I'm presently trying to perform a wikipedia-wide disambiguation of the two usages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: A conversation from last week, copied from my user talk page. (something I said should be done, and I never got around to it) —ExplorerCDT 05:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a minefield of polemics. The holocaust deniers inevitably push scholars to distance themselves from any possible mis-interpretation that there's any room for doubt, hence a redundant, circular term like genocidal Holocaust. Wyss 23:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Calling it "the Shoah" would be so accurate, but I agree most people don't know the term. Wyss 16:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with its accuracy.  It is a remarkable word when you look at it from its usage in Hebrew.  But, aside from Spielberg's oral history, and occasional utterances of it, there's really no means by which it has been imparted to the larger audience...unlike Holocaust.  However, when I first hear the word "Holocaust," I don't think of the WWII genocide.  Thought it is a second thought, my primary thought is of "nuclear holocaust" but that's mostly from my focus on Cold War military matters. (Which thankfully, I don't badger people with here...I have enough of it outside Wikipedia that bringing it here would make my time here miserable). —ExplorerCDT 16:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that it's only in the last 10-15 years that holocaust has, in popular usage, become so synonymous with the industrial scale genocide of European Jews during the 1940s. Wyss 17:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it's common usage is a by-product of the Historikerstreit (Historian's Quarrel) in Germany that happened in 1986.  However, it was used early in connection with the Nazi atrocities as early as the late 1950s (in works, I might add, by the recently late George F. Kennan, for one). —ExplorerCDT 17:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Be bold? (grin) Wyss 18:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just speaking with an eye towards posterity.  I'll be glad to do it once the discussion ends.  Though in the middle of it all, it may provide confusion ;-) I know you and I won't get confused by such a move, but Brian0918 may. —ExplorerCDT 18:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... okay?  -- BRIAN0918  15:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yeah, you post all over my talk page on the subject, consensus apparently seems to be as the page is now (referring to it as a genocidal Holocaust), and yet you persist in thinking a.) it isn't enough, and b.) your minority opinion over using a greatly unrecognized word should trump.  Consensus is compromise, and there's no use being a pedantic jackass about it.  Why don't we call it a day and put "Hitler is Evil" in capital letters ten feet high and erase the rest of the article?  Would that suffice? —ExplorerCDT 16:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I should probably not feed the troll, but I need to defend my position.  I was alright with "genocidal Holocaust" provided that "Holocaust" linked to "The Holocaust".  Tony Sidaway, however, was not, which is perfectly acceptable.  Shoah is the preferred term of notable Jews and is the accepted term of the Catholic Church, and so is not a minority opinion.  Mine was a compromise with Tony Sidaway; we both agreed on the current version.  He is currently planning on writing a separate article for holocaust which will explain the origins of the term, its usage, and how it came to be associated with The Holocaust, so right now is disambiguating the words throughout Wikipedia.  How's the business trip going?  -- BRIAN0918  17:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Business trip starts tomorrow, probably could last a good 4-5 months.  Spent most of this weekend configuring my laptop and trying to locate wi-fi hotspots in various cities I'll be going to so that I won't be too far out of the loop and that my watchlist wouldn't suffer from my absence.  As for Shoah..."notable Jews" isn't the whole world...just a small segment of a smaller ethnic group (a few million people worldwide) and that further proves the inclusive nature of the word's impact.  If it weren't for the documentary oral history Steven Spielberg made after making Schindler's List or my friendship with several Jewish intellectuals, I wouldn't have heard of the word "Shoah" in the first place.  It's just not used by the majority of the world.  The Catholic Church isn't much more credible either because Pope Pius XII had a swastika rosary given to him by Der Führer, did nothing to stop the madman, endorsed his efforts, and they'll do anything now to patch things up and make themselves look good (though I do think Pope John Paul II's concilatory efforts are genuine, the church itself is mired in a hypocrisy that knoweth no bounds). I was thinking the same thing about feeding the troll when I responded to you, so touché. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't think I've been hostile you though, whereas you have been from first contact.  -- BRIAN0918  18:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am always hostile and aggressive.  While it's probably not in the best interests of Wikipedian harmony, it makes money. And, as such, I have no intention upon changing that. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: * Alright, it seems Tony is fine with "the genocidal Holocaust", so I'll change it back to that since it's what everyone else seems to want anyways.  -- BRIAN0918  17:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have always admired Tony's efforts.  Despite whatever disagreements I have had with him in the past, I respect his judgment.  You, on the other hand, are a work in progress in my book. (I assume the feeling is mutual) —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think Tony and I were just completely confused by eachother.  I thought he was against "the genocidal Holocaust", but I guess he was only against "the Holocaust" because it left out "genocidal".  -- BRIAN0918  18:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I thought Tony had made that abundantly clear. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoah 

message: The article portrays the German populus in an unfairly bad light, particularly in the section om repression pre-war. Mention should be made that a) Anti-Semitism was by no means a uniquely German phenomenon and b) The public did not for a very long time give ACTIVE support to Nazi measures: One could mention the resounding failure of the April Boycott or the fact that Krystalnacht and similiar lower level violence was carried out almost entirely by the SA before the propaganda really started to hit home about 1938. Also, this section also seems to seek to create the impression that pre-war Germany was a pure terror state, which is simply incorrect. User:KharBevNor (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Treats the German Populus unfairly 

message: Alright vandal, now the page is protected.  Now explain on this page why the consensus version shouldn't be accepted, and if we come to a consensus on that, then your version may be incorporated. See how it works? As for your changes:
*Your claim that the current photo is "ugly" is laughable.  It's doubtful that the photo would remain in existence if Hitler didn't approve of it. The photo your replaced it with is crap; biography photos should be a portrait if possible, not a photo of the guy mixed in a crowd.  And for your other changes, they were already discussed above. --brian0918™ 23:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok vandal

message: The article mentions Hitler ingested a cyanide tablet.  In fact, the cyanide came from an ampule.  Minor change, but accuracy lies in the detail.
:Done.  Thanks.  --brian0918™ 02:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of suicide (minor change proposal) 

message: i think the protection should be removed, this page was protected for too long time. --Haham hanuka 12:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: *...and his government instituted ethnic cleansing (better known as the holocaust) of millions of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies.
*Between 1942 and 1945 the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, has led to the death of millions ,including millions of Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere.
--Haham hanuka 08:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are comfortable with the authoritativeness of these references, then you should add them to the article. Paul August  ☎ 18:59, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
**The lowercase "the holocaust" is completely wrong (grammatically and historically, see the Holocaust), and his removal of the accepted "11 million, 6 million" reference is unallowable.  Besides, his version doesn't even sound right:  "the SS... has led to the death of millions".  Not only is it bad English, it's a switch from active wording to passive wording ("killed" -> "led to the death of"), purposely deceiving.  --brian0918™ 18:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes I want to make 

message: I find the section on WWII in this article remarkably short for such a pivotal time for AH. I'm not a big expert on AH, but it seems we could expand on his relationship during that time with other high-ranking Nazis, and especially his increasing tendencies to take control of military operations himself, and deteriorating relationships with his generals. Surely also some mention of the Holocaust needs to be made there. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler during the war

message: I've been in Yad Vashem museum in Israel (which none of you have been there) they are claiming that the Nazis made soaps from the bones of the death victims which has been proved as an Urban legend!!!, I think we should have more sources for this argument. This source is not objective. --Haham hanuka 19:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yad Vashem]]  is not reliable source 

message: Please see User:Nadavspi/Haham Hanuka where Nadavspi is translating Haham hanuka's user page on Hebrew Wikipedia, which details why Haham hanuka was blocked from that encyclopedia. (He has only translated the first part of the page at the time of this posting, but is currently working on the rest.) --brian0918™ 19:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Haham hanuka|Haham hanuka]] is not a reliable source

message: First off, he is disregarding any of the consensus reached on the talk page, and attempting to start everything with a clean slate. No.
:Please specify what concensus you are talking about. My changes aren't informational in any significant way. I'm only cleaning up usage/grammar/style problems.--Nate Ladd 09:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
#I don't care about the date ordering.  
#", Founder of the Third Reich," sounds pretty bad right after his name.
#*"sounds pretty bad" is your POV. The sentence commits no errors. And the phrase comes after his dates, not after his name. It is modeled on the opening sentences of other biographical articles in this encyclopedia. E.g. "Joe Shmo (1888 - 1920), President of the United States ... " --Nate Ladd 09:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
#**Can you provide sample articles that are worded this way.  This is only a minor quibble. --brian0918™ 10:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Nathan Ladd's version

message: Am I the only one who feels that there is so much noise generated by vandals and editors reverting vandals that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's going on in the page history, especially  when one leaves for a couple of days?
Would you agree, that a switch "Hide vandalism" (similar to hide minor edits in Recent changes) would help? Editors could mark vandalism reverts with a flag, so you can filter out these changes in the page history.
(Otherwise I'd simply protect pages like this that receive too much vandalism.)
nyenyec ☎ 18:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme noise generated by vandalism