Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 33

message: I've been making occasional changes in links on this page, but perhaps it would be best to consider the whole collection. I think it is generally agreed that links should be from credible sources. Linkspam is a bad idea. But beyond that, shouldn't links be considered in terms of the reader? That is, links often get added that have no particular connection to the preceeding article. They may display POV, or take up some issue that 99% of readers simply aren't interested in. 
That being said, here's my evaluation of the existing links. The "Portrayals of Hitler Project"</B> is run by a credible German historian, and provides lots of information (and some documents) on how Hitler has been perceived over the years. I just added this one, and obviously think it valuable. There are <B>two timelines</B>. Surely we need only one? But more than that, the article itself is chronological, and why would most readers be interested in a long list of dates? I think both should go. The <B>"Hitler and Mussolini"</B> link is credible, and probably worth keeping — but I'm not sure how many readers are interested. Thje "extensive site on Adolf Hitler" does have a lot of information, even if it is not always reliable in details, and is worth keeping. I'd strike <B>"Answer.com."</B> It is Wikipedia once removed, with some links. Why link to ourselves? I'd strike <B>"Hitler's Genealogy."</B> It is in German, which most readers won't be able to handle. <B>"Mein Kampf"</B> is worth keeping as a prime source on Hitler, but there are two veresions listed. Let's eliminate one of them. The <B>"photographs of Hitler"</B> site happens to be mind, added before I got involved in Wikipedia. It draws several hundred hits a week from Wikipedia, and provides useful pictures. The <B>"25 point program"</B> is important for the history of Nazism, but might better by in the Nazi Party article rather than here? The <B>"Hitler's Family Tree"</B> probably isn't  of great interest to most readers, and a bit hard to understand for those not up on genealogy. Cut it? <B>"Hitler's grandfather"</B> seems to me of marginal interest to most readers. The <B>"Assessment of Adolf Hitler"</B> site looks designed to sell the guy's book, and strikes me as marginally valuable. I think it should go. That brings us to <B>"Hitler and the pope,"</B> the topic of the above lively discussion. It think it should go, since it is not central to Hitler's biography, and most readers are not likely to want to investigate that matter. The <B>"psychological profile"</B> is a fascinating historical document — but is it a good link for a general encyclopedia article? I think not. I'd like to replace the <B>"comprehensive account of Hitler"</B> link with a better one: http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/hitler/lectures.html. It includes the texts of lectures by a good German historian. I'd drop the <B>"NS-Archiv,"</B> given that it's in German. The link to <B>pictures in color</B> probably is interesting for lots of visitors.
In sum, I think most existing links should go, and what remains should be useful to someone wanting to go beyond what Wikipedia says on the large issues. There are 57,000,000 Google pages that mention Hitler. If people slip in whatever appeals to their particular interests, as had already been done to some extent, I think the list becomes less useful.
What might others think? Bytwerk 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody objects, cares ... until WP:BRD :-) Agathoclea 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I care! Don't delete any of the links. :-) Drogo Underburrow 08:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I care too. Please keep the links. Im not opposed to adding other links, even replacing ones with others that make the case better than the one given does. But, until then, lets keep these links. Giovanni33 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The two version of "Mein Kampf" seem to offer two different translations, unless one can be shown to be perfectly accurate which would you delete? The family tree is the uniquely interesting feature to me. Doesn't help much I know. PhilipPage 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes in Links 

message: Those are helpful articles.  Please consider adding information about the following:
1. Adolf Hitler’s notorious salute originated from the USA’s early Pledge of Allegiance and a (rexcurry.net/USA-pledge-of-allegiance-rexcurrydotnet.jpg) shocking photograph is here.  The original Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag and a (rexcurry.net/USA-pledge-of-allegiance2-rexcurrydotnet.jpg) photograph is here.  In actual use, the (rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html) second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by disinterested children perfunctorily performing the forced ritual chanting by extending the initial military salute, as shown by Professor Rex Curry. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the (rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-german-connections.html) military salute led to the hard, stylized salute of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.  The Nazi salute is an extended military salute via the USA’s Pledge. 
2. Adolf Hitler’s symbol (the swastika), although it was an ancient symbol, was used sometimes by the National Socialist German Workers Party to represent overlapping “S” letters for their “socialism,” as shown in (rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html) Swastika Secrets by Dr. Rex Curry.   The same symbolism is shown in Hitler’s own bizarre signature, which Hitler alter to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist," and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on (rexcurry.net/bookchapter4a1a2a.html) Volkswagens.
3. The Hitler-style salute in the USA pre-dated the Nazis by 30 years and was created by Francis Bellamy (author of the "Pledge of Allegiance").  Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy (author of the novel "Looking Backward") and Charles Bellamy (author of "A Moment of Madness") and Frederick Bellamy (who introduced Edward to socialistic "Fourierism") were socialists.  Edward, Charles and Frederick were brothers, and Francis was their cousin. Francis and Edward were both self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, and the "Nationalist Educational Association." They wanted all of society to ape the military and they touted "military socialism" and the "industrial army."  Edward’s book was an international bestseller, translated into every major language (including German) and he inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists worldwide (including Germany) via “Nationalist Clubs.”   Many of their policies were followed in the USA and still are followed in the USA and caused the USA’s big, expensive and oppressive government.
:The Nazi salute was far older, originating with Roman soldiers and Hitler got it through Mussolini, not the USA. Also, I see your links as an attempt at search engine optimization so I delinked the multiple links to what (I assume) is your own site. Apart from that misinformation, I don't see much new or enlightening in your post. --Golbez 07:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler & USA 

message: I wonder if anyone took a closer look at the article. Apart from reporting on a report from a catholic source it said "But the reports also of Hitler’s contempt for Pius have contrasted with other versions by historians and authors who have depicted Pius as being pro-German and have accused him of intentionally turning a blind eye to the Holocaust." In the light of this the linktext needs to change to reflect the content of the article. Agathoclea 14:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  kidnap link 

message: Is there a reason why he is not in the above mentioned category? 
I think I put him in there a couple of weeks ago.
Of course I might be missing something. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Military leaders]] 

message: I've made most of the changes in links I proposed above. I kept the links some people are enthused about. The result is, I think, more useful to the average visitor -- but we shall see what happens. Bytwerk 10:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the link to the .ws forum as it is a forum site. Did you get mixed up and wanted to include another link? Agathoclea 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The forum section is a relatively small part of that site, but I'm not inclined to defend its inclusion too strongly. Bytwerk 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just stares into the face when you go to it. On the basis that we like verifyable content - or at least would like to verify who placed the content I feel uncomfortable. Agathoclea 11:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in Links 

message: I have very interesting information about Hitler. Paramahansa Yogananda had revealed to some of his disciples that Adolf Hitler was Alexander the Great in one of his former incarnations. Before dismissing this idea as totally absurd, let us look at the similiarities of these two personalities. Alexander the Great had a great desire for conquest; so did Hitler. Alexander's spiritual teacher was a Hindu (infomation available in Autobiography of a Yogi) and Hitler had a sub-conscious liking for Hindu thought. For example, the Swastika is a Hindu symbol and Hitler believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. Should we include this controversial information in the article?
On a side note, in Conversations with God Book One by Neale Donald Walsch, it is revealed that Hitler went to heaven (as there is no such thing as hell according to the book) after his suicide! Should this small piece of information be included as well into the article? Of course, many people would strongly disagree about these two bits of information about Hitler. The world views Hitler as a totally evil man in absolute terms but the above mentioned book has a different view about this misunderstood personality. Any constructive feedback and comments would be appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem with these new age fake 'love' philosophies. If Hitler got into Heaven (however abstract the concept), it means that what you do in this life doesn't matter. You can be as evil, cruel and tyrannical as you like. You can murder as many people as you want. You can steal, cheat, lie your way through life and it won't matter. --Stevefarrell 10:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't argue with that! Even the thought of Hitler going to heaven is a laughable notion (to most people) which we may NEVER be able to completely prove. However, heaven (if it exists at all) can be a very, very, subjective concept. For example, if a good person is passionate about golf and after his death, enters heaven, he could be disappointed to find that golf does not exist in heaven. Then, heaven could be a hell for him, right? Earth is like a heaven for some and hell for others. In the same reasoning, perhaps Hitler's "heaven" is filled with torture and war and Adolf would feel right at home in this kind of an atmosphere. Anyway, if life exists after death, I wonder how Hitler is doing right now. Will he be reincarnated again (if this exist) on earth? And why did God (if that being exist) allow Hitler to set up concentration camps? Any strong comments are highly encouraged as I have more thoughts about this subject. As for the comments made by Stevefarrell, what if I gave you a higher concept that murder, theft, etc does not exist? What about the possibility that all the people Hitler killed went to a great place of love and understanding? That the 6 million Jews that have been ruthlessly killed went to heaven? What if I told you that the concept of evil is totally relative? That Hitler felt that HE was doing the right thing and had a sincere desire to see Germany prosper? Let us all view the bigger picture of this war. Remeber, if WW2 did not happen, many countries could still be under colonial rule. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Hitler Alexender the Great in one of his former incarnations? 

message: The introduction to the article is badly over-linked. The wiki style defines overlinked as having more than 10% links, having more links than lines, and low added-value items are linked without reason, i.e. plain dates like 1933. Ordinary words should not be linked. Furthermore, one of the links is even misleading, "facing crisis" takes the reader to Weimar Republic. The intro is ridiculous, just about every noun is linked. Links are footnotes. They call attention to themselves. Anywhere you see a link, ask if you would find acceptable "See (link)" inserted into the text. If not the item probably should not be linked.  The rest of the article is badly overlinked as well. Drogo Underburrow 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Why not eliminate a bunch and see if anyone yelps? Bytwerk 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the photo and biog box intrude too much on the text.--shtove 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-linking

message: The article mentions that near the end of the war, it was Hitler's stubbornness that had Germany continue to fight. From what I've gathered in different history books, however, states that surrender wouldn't have been realistic for Germany, since the Allies had called for an unconditional surrender on Germany's part. Thought I might mention it to help reach the NPOV standards 67.142.130.41 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the War

message: The new image (16 April 2006) is much better - the editor was an IP but I agree with his comment that the previous image was propaganda-esque and the new image is more neutral. T. J. Day 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I'm tempted to remove a few of these "trivia" items without references-- specifically the flatulance one.  I've no idea where one would even look to find that kind of reference, and it seems kinda childish anyway to include it.  Anyone else think it should be cut? Fieari 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen mention of his flatulence problem.  A source will probably turn up.  Mattergy 09:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kershaw mentions the flatulence. O'Donnell mentions the severe halitosis, also.Michael Dorosh 14:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed in trivia section 

message: I created a clone of the infobox of Hitler and protected it. This is to prevent ROHA from continually changing the picture as he has been doing since 10 November, 2005. I'm sick of seeing changes to this article that say "ROHA: removed propaganda" and "ROHA: note that so-and-so reverts back to propaganda without discussion." As such, I'm going to prevent ROHA from "removing propaganda" from this page. If people really want to/need to change the contents of the infobox, then they can discuss it here. Otherwise, that's the way it's going to stay. 
By the way, I compiled/am compiling a list of ROHA's activities. This is located at User:Linuxbeak/Hitler article and ROHA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All academic, if the picture gets deleted on commons for lack of copyright status. Agathoclea 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That ROHA activity list (i.e. the stuff ROHA has been doing) is insane.  The infobox shouldn't need editing very often, so protecting it with technical measures is reasonable given the revert war. Phr 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templated infobox created 

message: Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry  probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?--59.144.96.118 04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. World of Biography meets none of the reasons to have an external link as given on the page Wikipedia:External links. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Of Biography