Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 44

message: How are you able to edit the article on your own? I thought it was locked. Don't you have to send a petition somewhere for them to unlock the article? Xanon
:That the article is locked only means that unregistered or new users can't make changes. --Delta Tango 11:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it is "semi-protected", which means that you only can edit it after registering and waiting a few days. Str1977 (smile back) 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't I edit the article? 

message: on page 14 under The Holocaust i noticed a spelling error
"Besides being gassed to death, many also died of starvation and disease while working as slave laborers"
do you no have a spell checker on this site? if not you may want to impliment one so this does not happen as often.
:No, there is no spell checker. But there are people who apparently have no idea that there are differences between UK and US spelling, and that there is no such word as "impliment" in the lexicons of either nation. Paul B 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What an irritatingly pompous response this is. 86.16.223.203 19:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what happens when you complain about spelling errors and produce them yourself. We all make such errors once in a while, so if you see one, correct it and don't make a big fuzz. Str1977 (smile back) 10:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spell checker 

message: This image comes from a large photo with Hitler and Mussolini together, and is free. It's definitely better than the current photo at top - how about changing it? Aran|heru|nar 12:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly better than the Nazi-propaganda picture :Image:Adolf Hitler 1938 Berghof.jpg. Camillus (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "cropped" version :Image:Mountainadolf.JPG is just as bad - why the hell should the english wikipedia use a Nazi-propaganda picture, designed to glorify Hitler? Camillus (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We want an image that clearly displays his features (no heavy shadows), and is neither designed to show him as a "visionary hero" nor as a "ranting maniac". I guess that all things being equal colour is better, but only marginally (b+w can present physiognomy more sharply). The signed Berghof pic did seem to show him as a "loveable guy", perched tentatively on the balustrade. I think the cropped version is less, as it were, charming. Can you actually explain what is "bad" about it, or how it "glorifies" him? Paul B 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, not allowed to alter (crop) a fair use image. --Lysytalk 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sez who? I see no such statement in fair use. Indeed it gives an example of "sampling" in music, which is the aural equivalent of cropping. Paul B 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use does not mean the copyright is void. Therefore one has to respect the moral rights of the author, including the right to the integrity. --Lysytalk 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've already said, this is contradicted by the discussion on fair use. In fact cropping for clarity, illustrating a detail etc of both copyrighted and historical photographs occurs every day in newspapers, journals and magazines. It's normal practice. Paul B 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is but it requires the consent of the author or his descendants. That's what the right to the integrity of the work is about. --Lysytalk 10:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hitler is portrayed by his favourite propaganda photographer, in his smartest uniform, with a mountain backdrop. That's bad, in my book. As usual, the German wikipedia leads the way in chosing neutral pictures, showing him neither as hero or villain :Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG. Previously they had just a plain side-on photograph.  Camillus (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about not using Nazi propaganda pictures to illustrate Wikipedia ? I second that en.wiki could follow the good example set by German wikipedia here. --Lysytalk 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not! Just because a picture originally served as propaganda is no reason not to use it. In fact, the then-propaganda has its informative value as it also tells us how that person presented himself. We should use a picture that is both of a good photographic quality, representative of the person depicted. Just because Hitler is the greatest criminal in history doesn't mean that we should use a crappy picture to make him look bad. Look at Stalin or Mao - these articles use official pictures too. The "speech" picture or the supposedly "correct picture" are just horrible. Str1977 (smile back) 07:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda pictures would be a good illustration for an article on Nazi propaganda but not for an article about the actual person. If Nazi propaganda claimed Hitler was beautiful and 10 feet tall, should we also be using this information in the article ? --Lysytalk 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, becuase it would be inaccurate. You are misusing the word propaganda here, because you are equating it with deception. In fact the photo of Hitler you approved of - showing Hitler with his officers - is just as much "propaganda" as the one you dislike. Even photos of Hitler apparently "ranting" were often official images designed to show him as an impassioned speaker. A portrait photograph that is simply showing someone posed is no more usefully described as "propaganda" than the portrait photographs that everyone has of their own family. Paul B 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I specifically object to using Nazi propaganda illustrations for general article about a person on wikipedia, where there are non-Nazi pictures available. --Lysytalk 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moot point. Nazi propaganda is usally copyrighted. Hoffmann died 1957 (+70pma). Free use is either US goverment (or canada) or picture licenced to freeuse like the yugoslavia picture. Using Stalins propaganda picture is no precendent as Soviet copyright was a lot different. Agathoclea 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Nazi photos" are not imbued with some evil force that makes them somehow fundamentally different from other photographs. Portrait photographs of Nazi leaders are not meaningfully different from portrait photographs of Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin or anyone else. Before photography, portrait paintings served the same purpose. Of course all usually try to show the person in a good light and follow common conventions. We have numerous articles on people from Alexander the Great through Osama bin Ladin in which portrait images are used. Paul B 11:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: As noted further up the page  keeps changing to the picture from the one I understand the current consensus to favour. Comments? Agathoclea 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but an infobox usually shows the portraits of the person's head - and even preferably without a military cap. The rather blurred image of Hitler in Yugoslavia does not meet this infobox standard. The image of Hitler taken from a Mussulini photo is a compromise, until somebody uploads a better image. Why do you think the Hiler in Yugoslavia image is so great for the infobox? regards, Camptown 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Clothes make the man" - :Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG conveys far more information than a simple head shot ever could.  Similarly, consider how much less informative the infobox image HERE would be were it only a head shot. --CliffC 05:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox picture 

message: This picture, which accidentally captured Hitler in the Odeon Platz: http://germandressdaggers.com/Germany%20Ewache%204.jpg is fairly well-known and quite intersting. As it was taken in 1914 the copyright has surely lapsed. See short explanation of picture in German here: http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2400549,00.html. Perhaps it is worth including in the article. Hi There 13:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Picture Worth Including - Munich, August 1914, In a Crowd

message: Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty was really only inserted as a justification for-unspecified-reparations.  Too much is made here of the 'war guilt' element, which only really became an issue after the 'victors' bill' became known.
White Guard 00:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is how the Allies intended it. But German perception was different and one cannot blame them for taking the article at face value. And yes, the article was one of the most horrid things and had a tremendous impact,as described in the article. Str1977 (smile back) 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versailles Treaty/"Victors' Bill"/"War Guilt" 

message: === Inheritance ===
There are some silly errors in this page which-I assume-I cannot amend because of its protected status.  To take one small example-how could Hitler have received an inheritance from his father in 1913 when he had been dead for ten years? A more serious point is that much of the discussion of Hitler and the Jews is speculative to the point of outright nonsense. White Guard 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the details of the inheritance, but 10 years' delay in a legal system is not unusual when there's a dispute. Best place for lawyers? Bottom of the sea.--Shtove 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't Hitler already dead?/Date discrepancies 

message: There are some silly errors in this page which-I assume-I cannot amend because of its protected status.  To take one small example-how could Hitler have received an inheritance from his father in 1913 when he had been dead for ten years? A more serious point is that much of the discussion of Hitler and the Jews is speculative to the point of outright nonsense. White Guard 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the details of the inheritance, but 10 years' delay in a legal system is not unusual when there's a dispute. Best place for lawyers? Bottom of the sea.--Shtove 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inheritance 

message: The picture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hitler_ueber_Deutschland_1932.jpg ) of Hitler apparently 'campaigning by plane' in 1932 shows Hitler wearing what appears to be his military-style 'Supreme Commander' tunic, which he didn't wear until 1939, around the outbreak of the war. Therefore, it seems that this picture was mislabeled and should probably be deleted or relabeled to fit its proper context. --Grimgerde 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Führer's New, Time-Traveling Clothes? 

message: The article presently states: "Hitler was admitted to a field hospital". Is this really correct? David Lewis (psychologist) writes in his book (p. 14) that Hitler was taken to a 'casualty clearing centre at Linselle' (later referring to it as an 'aid station') and after that Hitler was driven to a 'hospital' in the town Oudenaarde and then further on to Pasewalk lazarett. A (mobil) field hospital is not mentioned (as far as I can skim) -- fnielsen 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War I: "Field hospital" 

message: It has come to my attention on the view that Hitler had of African-Americans, I hope someone can help verify the following information. Where the Tuskegee airmen really treated respectably by the Nazis, and did Hitler really shake Jesse Owens hand in the Berlin Olympics?
:The answer to your second question is explained in detail on the Jesse Owens article. --Golbez 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler and African-Americans 

message: I have read several books about Hitler and never have I seen any author describe his WWI service or behavior as a soldier as 'sloppy'. Please state your source on this matter. I would like to read it myself.
It seems a bit 'sloppy' to me.
White Guard 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War I service 

message: Should speculation of this topic be included in the article?  please see Hitler Has Only Got One Ball#Did Hitler really have only one testicle?  WIZARD826 17:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this before, and the consensus is no. See Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_43#Testicles. It is discussed in Adolf Hitler's medical health. Paul B 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hitler's alleged monotesticularness 

message: Sorry to sound... naive or stupid, but the other day I was watching a program on one of the History channels, and it suggested it may not have been Hitlers corpse discovered, as he had never had a full medical examination, and due to fire damage, there wasnt much evidence to prove it was him. Just wondering if there is reference to prove me wrong (or right?) Popher 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it Hitler in that fire?