Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 3

message: As the page was getting too long when edited completely I have moved the longest part to the page above. It is a very long discussion about whether the spelling Adolph should be mentioned and if it should be mentioned as a misspelling or as an alternative less common spelling. I hope I did it correctly. As my English is to poor for refactoring it I haven't done that, except that I removed parts that were purely repetitions. Any comment by me about what I changed for reorganizing is in the typewriter font. Furthermore I also tried to add meaningfull headers on this pageLaudaka 05:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

message: Why is it redundant that the red army was hostile and approached Hitler's bunker? How is the reader supposed to know that unless we state it? Andries 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not redundant, it should be. That sort of thing should be in the body of the article, not the header statement. This article keeps having its intro expanded, and that is not what they are for. It should simply be a short statement of why Hitler has an article here, why he is famous; if the reader wants details, they then read the article. Instead, editors are trying to summarize everything about him. That is not how biographical articles are supposed to be structured here. ChessPlayer 23:10, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of posterity, ChessPlayer and I have come to an opposite understanding at User_talk:ChessPlayer#Lead_section. See also Wikipedia:Lead section. --mav 02:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: well, I bascically agree with Maverick about the lead section but I give priority to improving the main article. Andries 18:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: to user:Articfrog, redundant? 

message: Did somebody tried to find the ugliest picture of Hitler available? Can this brown painting please be replaced? Thanks Andries 17:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I also find it ugly, but an image is needed, and there were apparently copywright issues w the previous image. Sam [Spade] 17:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I could upload a few more and we could have a vote or something, I have about a dozen of these propaganda pictures. This one seemed the most realistic. It does not have the fake self-confident pose most others do, it was the least propagandistic of the bunch. The old picture was one from Walter Frentz’s personal archive. Frentz was one of the top photographers of the Reich, amongst others he was the cinematographer on the Triumph of The Will. --GeneralPatton 18:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First the page will have to be unprotected. What is it we were so angry about that we required an armistace? It couldn't have been this silly looking picture could it? Hitler looks almost ashamed, as if concerned about NPOV on his article ;) Sam [Spade] 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: GeneralPatton, Please upload another picture. Yes, the picture looks realistic, but it hurts my eyes.Andries 09:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly pic

message: If the page was protected because of the Intro, I'd just like to weigh in that I think Sam Spade's version is more informative and encyclopedic. Quadell (talk) 15:43, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
:Gah, my eyes! john k 16:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ?... Anyways, I was rather concerned about the harsh response to the intro, and decided to run it past a Left-wing academic friend of mine (he works for a top 10 uni, and is a grad student). He said the 2 versions were really not so very different, and commented that mine was a bit more "flowery". When I asked if he thought it was "apologetic" to Hitler, he remarked that it certainly was not, w my mention of the racial policy leading to mass deaths. We had an interesting side conversation about how that wouldn't need mentioning in the first paragraph if WWII were not so recent, since slaughtering of civilians is pretty much standard thru-out history, often (but of course not always) based apon race. Hitler may be remembered today for his racism, but is certainly not remarkable in that trait, as anyone w a cursory knowledge of history (or current events for that matter...) can attest to. I also had a long convo w a wikipedian via IM, where he expressed a concern over "was said to have died by his own hand", as it leaves open the possibility that the russian account might be less than scrupulously accurate. While I find this concern unfounded, I would be willing to consider compromise on this area, as nearly all sources seem to accept the soviet account verbatim. Sam [Spade] 19:43, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I tried "reported". No dice. I think I'll rewrite the whole sentance next time. Sam [Spade] 21:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: What this means is that apparently, the conflicting parties do not agree upon either of the two versions. We need to work out one (1) version here on the talk page, and not until then, can the page be unprotected. ✏ Sverdrup 23:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I have no idea wht user David Remahl listed it as a copyvio before consulting me. The portrait was one of numerous official proganada posters.
With copyright stuff, can't we just do that while the page is still protected?  That's not what the dispute's over, in any event. john k 06:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Neither of these acronyms is explained in the article.  What were they?  --Eequor 20:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly "apologetics", and it is of course highly on-topic, so I have restored it. Is there any specific claim which you call into question? I edited this section from an earlier version, which openly held the KPD responsible for Hitler's rise to power and idiotically claimed that they had "collaborated" with the nazis. And it is of course a relevant question for an article about Hitler how exactly he rose to power; the section is titled "the road to power" for a good reason. We can agree to move the discussion elsewhere (e.g. NSDAP or Weimar Republic) and link to it from here, but outright deletion is utterly unacceptable. By the way, you also removed all references to the Reichstag Fire, but I assume this was an accident.--Eloquence* 23:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
The idea that the Communist Party was really into the idea of allying with the SPD to stop Hitler, and that the SPD refused, is just ridiculous.  Local branches of the SPD and KPD made alliances.  The national KPD was completely opposed to an alliance, holding onto the Comintern "Social Fascist" position until it was too late to do anything about it.  The SPD, of course, didn't do very much to court the Communists, either, although what overtures there were seem to have been from the SPD and their fellow travelers towards the KPD (for instance, a leftish DSP official in the Prussian government tried to talk to the Communists about tolerating the Braun government, which provided the pretext for Papen to launch his coup against the Prussian government.  I would agree, of course, that we should not have a section that says that the KPD was responsible for the rise of Hitler, or that they collaborated with the Nazis.  On the other hand, the KPD's "social fascist" position, held in the face of opposition from their own rank and file, who wanted a broad popular front type thing, certainly didn't do much to hinder Hitler.  My other problem with the passage is that it essentially comes out of nowhere.  The article is talking before this about the machinations within the Kamarilla around Hindenburg that resulted in Hitler being made Chancellor.  Then, all of a sudden, it goes into a several paragraphs long riff on why the Communists were wholly innocent of any complicity in the Nazi rise to power.  Then it suddenly goes back to a discussion of the specific tactics Hitler used once he became Chancellor.  This is just bizarre.  At any rate, discussion of this issue belongs in Communist Party of Germany, Social Democratic Party of Germany, the appropriate article in the History of Germany area, Weimar Republic, National Socialist German Workers Party, and so on and so forth.  It is essentially irrelevant to a biographical article about Hitler. john k 05:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPD and KPD 

message: The article states at one point, "Comparing political opponents to Hitler is also a very common tactic in many countries. During the Presidential campaign of 2004, the George W. Bush web site even featured an ad showing Hitler (http://georgewbush.com)."
This is technically true but quite unfair.  The reader is left with the impression that Bush is comparing his political adversaries to Hitler.  In fact, the Bush web-ad in question only "show[s] Hitler," quite fleetingly, for the express purpose of _complaining about_ an ad (from which Bush's quick excerpt is drawn) previously posted on the website of pro-Kerry group MoveOn.org.  The latter ad did directly compare Bush to Hitler; and Bush's ad simply calls brief attention to that ad (along with other harsh attacks on Bush) to illustrate how unfair the comparison is.
How about appending, to the above-quoted sentence, "albeit for the purpose of complaining about a prior ad that had compared Bush to Hitler"?
:No. StoptheBus18 18:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's ad only mentions Hitler to complain about the comparison