Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 27

message: See [], and particularly [].
Form many historiagraphers, Rothschild was the family where  Maria Schicklgruber was a servant and the father of Alois Hitler was Baron Rothschild.
Rothschild was an important Jewish family of bankers, that lived in Germany.
The article of Adolf Hitler refers to this event. Hiltler's politic oppositors probably have taken the name of the Jewish family, they accused Hitler to be part. XXX
Any Rothschild relation is nonsense. According to those who claim a Jewish descent (Hans Frank) the supposed Jewish landlords of Miss Schicklgruber were called Frankenberger. The Rothschild family originated from Frankfurt and moved from there as bankers to other capitals, certainly not to a town like Graz. Str1977 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler and Rothschild(a possible relation)

message: No offense intended, but the first paragraphs of the article flow without a crispness to them.
*The true date Hitler took power as Chancellor of Germany, 30 January 1933, is not given, only the year alone; likewise with the date he moved to abolish the office of President, and declare himself combined Führer and Chancellor, head of state and government operating as a single entity.
*The renaming of the National Socialist Party is not mentioned; "better known as" the Nazi Party is therefore a tertiary level, under the secondary one of the alteration of the original name; National Socialism is likewise, academically, the term by which the system and government is known.
*Hitler's last name is given too often in the opening paragraphs; in the statement "Hitler gained power in a Germany facing crises after World War I. He used charismatic oratory...", the word is used just after identifying Hitler to begin with; the statement would 'flow' better by stating it as, "Gaining power in a Germany faced with multiple crises in the First World War's aftermath, Hitler used charismatic oratory...", bypassing the splitting of the sentences.
*The appeal of Hitler to the German middle-class is not suitably addressed in the opening paragraphs: the nationalism and anti-Semitism of the German people began developing years before his birth in 1889; to attempt to assign Hitler a position of creating a situation whereby blame was fostered on Jews for the sum of Germany's ills solely due to his oratory is to do a disservice to history, especially in light of the fact that Hitler's own anti-Semitism was in itself a product of other confluencing factors, not least of which the mysticism that members of the German intelligensia dabbled in throughout the late 19th century, and made "respectable" thereby, which claimed the "inferiority" of the "Semitic" race to those of "Aryan" descent (a term that described a purportedly ancient Atlantis-like people of the north, complete with island continent in the Arctic Ocean, not just those of pale skin, as has often been assumed).
*The way in which the military was rearmed is vague; Germany was not without a military in the years of 1919-1932, it was with a military that was vastly inferior in terms of technology and manpower to the militaries of other nations, most notably those that would be prominent members of the Allies (with the exception of the United States, which by free choice of Congress kept numbers only slightly in excess of those imposed by sanction upon Germany); his rearming, as such, is non-definite in scope.
*"Much of Europe (occupied)" is vague as a term; the Third Reich's foreign policy during the 1930s can be described best as opportunistic, along with expansionist; with such as the case, the dimensions it acquired can be geographically as well as psychologically understood: Germany ruled all from the French Atlantic coast to the Russian steppe just before (and to its south, openly beyond) Moscow, and from western Scandinavia to the Italian and Aegean peninsulas, and the north-central Mediterranean coast of Africa.
*The way in which "the Allies" is stated makes plain that people are expected to automatically know what they are; this is a conceit, and one that does a disservice in a day and age when some citizens don't seem to be able to differentiate the meanings of such phrases as "morning constitutional" and "original constitution."
*What is the true scope being implied by "racial policies" phrasing?  The scope and distinction of the Nazi system seems to bypass any mere connection to the notion of racism as it has occurred elsewhere; specific examples of likewise treatment are always carefully studied, in academic treatises on the matter.  Instead of "racial policies," would it not be effective to identify its major components, including slave labor, mass extermination by mechanized means, and the reduction of human flesh into horrifyingly (granted, a POV statement there) basic forms such as assorted soaps, as well as the lesser-mentioned aspects (experimentation on humans, for instance, both genetic and non)?  Gruesome, but this is a gruesome man, and likewise vision.
*"About 11 million people," as mentioned elsewhere, is not 'encyclopedic', to reiterate the term that was used; it sounds offhand in nature, instead of precise.  It has been academically stated that 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jews ("Gentiles"?) perished under the National Socialist exterminationist "program"; if this number is off, and 11 million is accurate, then the exact numbers of each should be given, so as to be able to understand it better (and to explain why the number is reduced, as well).
*The matter of Hitler's demise in the underground bunker is taken in likewise rather offhand nature; the exact date of his matrimony to Eva Braun is of importance, in that it occurred a day before he committed suicide; that he would take his wife with him, so to speak, raises questions even then, as it were, of the depravity within him (though again, a POV statement that should not be included in the article).  The progressive degradation of his own health, almost mirroring the life and vitality (warped though it might have been) of Nazi Germany, is not touched upon.  Hitler possibly having health issues regarding his final days is of summarical importance to understanding why, or at least possibility of why, he gave the, to quote, "insane" orders that he did to his generals in the Reich's last days.
These matters should be addressed, I believe.
--Chr.K. 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise many good points. I suggestyou address these by composing the text and making the edits. Maybe here first, but its find if you change the article, unless there are strong objections make here. I say be bold and make the changes. I wondered too about the use of National Socialism when Hiter himself objected to the use of Socialism to the party, and threatened to resign even, but later gave in. The name was adopted in an attempt to give it appeal to workers economic needs, but later showed itself to be hostile in practice to these concerns. Thus the word "socialist" is a misnomer (Hiter was right not included it). BelindaGong 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It was already short and concise, and not too longer. I like it how it is, but several points by Chr.K can be addressed without making it any longer. An intro should be just that, an intro, that has a very short summary, encapuslating the body of the article, like say a thesis statment does for an essay. The way it is now, it does that well. I'm glad someone else reverted because I was all out for 24 hours myself. :)BelindaGong 22:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ebb and flow" to the article's early sections, and hopefully constructive criticisms 

message: First of all, it is not good form to slap us around with "3rr is in effect". You cannot enforce it, so don't wave it around like a tool to use. Secondly, whereas my changes were grammatical and aesthetic in nature, yours are simply blanking - and therefore, are much more needed to be justified here. So, please do. --Golbez 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3rr is WP policy. If you violate 3rr, rest assured your edit history will be posted onto the 3rr vio page of the admin noticeboard and you'll likely be blocked within minutes. Wyss 01:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By that, I mean don't keep a running total of your reverts if you're just getting into the fight. It's just poor form. PS, you were wrong - that was your third revert of the day. (23:30 Feb 9, 15:27 Feb 10, 17:58 Feb 10; current time is 23:37, you made it!) --Golbez 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3rr applies to identical (or nearly so) reverts. I haven't even come close to violating 3rr, but you did. Why are you attempting to edit by revert? Wyss 01:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you revert an article 3 times, then someone comes along, makes an edit you agree with, can you then revert to that version 3 times? No. It's 3 reverts per article per day, not per version per day. Stop getting into rulecruft and discuss the actual argument. I didn't get in a revert war with you at all, I was perfectly happy til you blanked it. --Golbez 04:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were perfectly happy with a version which was not accepted by consensus. I've explained my edit (this talk page will show I've expressed my preference for a minimal intro several times in the past) and I've asked you not to edit by revert. Your use of the term blanked is inaccurate, inappropriate and in my opinion, an attempt to distract the discussion away from content. Wyss 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there consensus to prune most of the intro? Please indicate it. --Golbez 04:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said there was a consensus to prune the intro. To repeat once again, I support the longer "totalitarian" intro which was arrived at by consensus. In absence of a long intro that I support, I would prefer a very brief intro. I exercised the latter preference when you ignored (perhaps unknowingly) the established consensus for the "totalitarian" intro. I was happy to see the long "totalitarian" intro restored. Please note that a prominent note in the edit view of the article requests discussion before making significant changes. Wyss 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And deleting two entire paragraphs is not a significant change? Stop preaching what you don't practice, stop defending what you can't. --Golbez 05:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Codswallop. I explained my edit. Why are you so bent on trying to influence article content by attacking other editors? Wyss 17:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, no, 3rr applies even if you do a partial revert of any material. You violated the 3RR already Wyss. I guess you are going to report yourself now? 64.121.40.153 02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia:3rr and Wikipedia:Troll, thanks. Wyss 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should review the policy. I know it. You are violating it out of ignorance (assuming good faith). It says revering also " means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new." Also, I don't see any trolls here. You should review the policy of assuming good faith and civility. This means you have violated three rules. 64.121.40.153 07:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're only looking for ways to avoid discussing the article's content. Wyss 17:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another Wiki violation: assume good faith, and Civility. Contrary to your latest false claim, I have been making the arguments talking about the article, which you have been largly avoiding, intead making accusation of trolls, and misquoting the 3RR rule for others while you violate it yourself. Now that you now what the 3RR really entails I hope you will not violate it anymore. Giovanni33 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, for the last time, since my notion of a minimal intro has been supported by only one other editor, I do fully support the longer "totalitarian" intro. Wyss 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wyss' edit 

message: Please help with this article. --Soberre 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy]]

message: User:BelindaGong, User:MikaM and User:Giovanni33 have been editing through aggressive reverts at Christianity, in disagreement with User:Str1977 and others. I'm wondering if their sudden flurry of coordinated edits and aggressive revert warring here are related? Should they review WP:Point and WP:Stalking for the purpose of considering whether their edits here are in conformance with WP policy, or even helpful? Wyss 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting to see you accusing others of stalking, when you've just stalked the three editors mentioned. Also, in what way does your "investigation" help to improve this article? Camillus (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Codswallop. I've disrupted nothing and certainly didn't jump into the revert war over at Christianity. There is no WP policy against looking at an article's edit history, period. Please stop mis-using WP terminology. Please review WP:Stalking. Please stop mis-representing my edits in an attempt to intimidate and gain leverage over article content. The edit histories speak for themselves. Wyss 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no policy against looking at an article's history, but your use of the history of another, completely unrelated article to make a point about three other editors, in this article is not "helpful". Who's intimidating who? All your replies to my comments have been accusations of personal attacks, intimidation etc. etc. Why don't you try to keep to the point? The edit history does indeed speak for itself - as can be seen to back up my assertion that you "blanked" two very important paragraphs, leaving the intro in a completely asinine form. Camillus (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Camillus, and I strongly resent the implications make by Wyss which I regard as baseless personal attacks, and its taking us off topic, once again. I suggest you reveiw WP Civility, and assume good faith. I could say more but I don't want to contribute to this nonsensical distraction on your part. Giovanni33 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:Stalking, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. I didn't mention you in my post about this issue. Also note that I was asking, not accusing. If there is a violation of WP policy, however, it should be addressed. Meanwhile, I'm confident that my edits on this talk page are appropriate to the situation and in full conformance with WP policy. Thanks. Wyss 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spillover