Talk:Hans Globke

message: "His superior resigned..." -- name, source? maarten 14:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * Full name: Hans Josef Maria Globke
*Member of Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen
*Hans Globke and Wilhelm Stuckart, Kommentar zur deutschen Rassengesetzgebung (Comment on the German race legislation), Munich, Germany, 1936
*Hans Globke, Die Immunität der Mitglieder des Reichstages und der Landtage (The immunity of the members of the Reichstag and the federal state parliaments), Giessen, Germany 1922
*1925 Vice chief of the police Aachen
*1929 Prussian ministry of the Interior
*1932 - 1945 Ministry of the Interior (Reich)
*24. Oktober 1940 Request for membership in the NSDAP, rejected because of objection by Martin Bormann
*Informat for the bishop of Berlin, Konrad Graf von Preysing 
*Peripherally involved in the failed coup d'état July 20 Plot, contact to Carl Friedrich Goerdeler and Ludwig Beck
*October 1949 Ministerialdirigent 
*July 1950 he took over the head department for internal affairs as Ministerialdirektor 
*1953 - 1963 Director of the  Federal Chancellory (besides Heinrich Krone and Otto Lenz Globke was one of the closest aides to Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer)
*Globke e.g. in east German newsreel "Der Augenzeuge": http://www.cine-holocaust.de/cgi-bin/gdq?efp00cbp102854.gd
*Globke was sentenced in east Germany 23 july 1963 in absence (war crimes)
--Hnr 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing 

message: He was Director of the Federal Chancellory of West Germany between 1953 and 1963 and as such was one of the closest aides to Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
Globke's key position as a national security advisor to Adenauer and his involvement in anticommunist activities in post-war West Germany made both the West German government and CIA officials wary of exposing his Nazi past, which is documented in Tetens 1961 (pp. 37-42), where Tetens writes "under Globke's direct authority is (as of 1961) the operation of a supersecret organization headed by Hitler's former spy chief, Lieutenant General Reinhard Gehlen, leader of the post-war ODESSA and Die Spinne covert political operations.''
Where does the last quote end? Where is evidence for Gehlen being the "leader of ODESSA"? If that were true, why isn't it even mentioned in the Gehlen article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo2001 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations 

message: Redundant ref: Eichmann's hideout kept secret by CIA, The Guardian, Wednesday June 7, 2006 maarten 16:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm moderately familiar with German history after 1918, but it would be a help to me and others whose German is limited or non-existent if more of the  German terms were translated into English, and some of the German organizations' nominal roles (e.g., for those who haven't heard of it, the Zentrumspartei or Centre Party (Germany) explained. Experienced Wikipedia editors with WP:pop-ups can read the beginning of wikilinks by using a mouse, but we're a very tiny minority of Wikipedia readers in English. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translate more terms into English, please 

message: Why is there a section for Globke`s "Pre WWII service and Nazi activity" and one for his "Post WWII service", but no section about what he actually did in the war, which, I suspect, is of most interest to most readers of this page !--JustinSmith (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  During the war : missing section ! 

message: Would please be possible to know what happened to him eventually, as the story seemed to truncate?Olaotan1 (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later Life 

message: the pronunciation contradicted itself, so I deleted it.  restore if you know it.  — kwami (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hans Globke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121014142825/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_records_nazis to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_records_nazis
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hans Globke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120805134509/http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/betrayalp12.htm to http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/betrayalp12.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor who is apparently unfamiliar with WP:LEAD has inserted a "lead too long" tag here. It has been removed because it lacks any justification/rationale here on the talk page, and frankly because it's simply incorrect. According to WP:LEAD, "as a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." The lead section of this article includes three carefully crafted paragraphs of reasonable length. Its length is entirely normal and reasonable for a high-profile politician (compare: Barack Obama), and we are definitely not going to remove two thirds of the lead section because that suggestion has no basis whatsoever in WP:LEAD. Globke was one of the most influential West German politicians in the 1950s and 1960s with such a wide area of responsibility that a very short lead section wouldn't adequately summarize his political legacy. --Tataral (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is too long. It's also  totally  unsourced as well as the next main section. Please read WP:LEAD again, and please see the equivalent German article at de:Hans_Globke as an example. If you  need any  assistance, don't hesitate  to  ask -  I'm a native German speaker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the lead section is not too long here at the English Wikipedia, and no evidence or policy-based rationale has been offered by yourself or others for this claim; without any supporting evidence or rationale based on English Wikipedia policies such a claim has no weight here. A lead section comprising three paragraphs of reasonable length is entirely in accordance with the recommendations of WP:LEAD and entirely normal by English Wikipedia standards. This is not the German Wikipedia, a German Wikipedia article is not an acceptable source and the German lead section (which is badly written and too short by the standards of the English Wikipedia) is not an example for us; they do things very differently from us here at the English Wikipedia as far as lead sections are concerned (with their frequent one-sentence or two-sentence lead sections), and we have our own manual of style here and longer lead sections than them. I recommend that you familiarise yourself with the manual of style at the English Wikipedia, especially WP:LEAD. I on the other hand am very familiar with WP:LEAD. Also, lead sections do not as a rule here at the English Wikipedia include inline citations. --Tataral (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't know why you complain to me about the fact that the first section of the body of the article, which I haven't written and don't recall having edited at all, doesn't include inline citations, and in a discussion about a completely unrelated topic, namely what the appropriate length of the lead section is. If that is of concern to you no one has prevented you from addressing that problem. --Tataral (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but you keep removing the tag which stops the tag being noticed by somebody else. I'll do the work to shorten it, and you can Tataral, can review it. I'll make a list here and you can have a look. scope_creep (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's fine. It's not like I insist that the lead section cannot be improved at all. --Tataral (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of the lead section

message: There are also problems with an IP editor who is inserting his personal opinions, such as "CIA and BnD have been actively trying to hide and white wash his past", into the article, and incorrectly and nonsensically labelling him as a "collaborationist" in the lead (Collaborationism = the cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime). The same editor is also involved in pushing similar Soviet bloc POV in other articles, e.g. with this "US is NOT a democracy" (in a WWII era context) edit --Tataral (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: IP POV edits

message: Hi Tataral. We need to shrink this. 
# I will try and find references for the lede, maybe in Google Books.
# I think the second paragraph needs to go into the main body and woven in as per. Most of it can be woven in to early life and studies.
# And put this sentence:
As a powerful éminence grise of the West German government, he had a major role in shaping the course and structure of the state, in West Germany's alignment with the United States, its anti-communist policies at the domestic and international level and in the western intelligence community
in the lede, if a reference can be found for it. The denazification stuff from second para can go into the Nazi towards the end. Jewish property stuff from second para can go into Nazi section.
What do you think? scope_creep (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Tataral has chosen not to answer. As I stated above, the lede is far too long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Shrinking of Lead

message: The section "Measures to exclude and persecute Jews" contains the following sentence:
"He applied for membership of the Nazi Party for career reasons in 1940, but the application was rejected on 24 October 1940 by Martin Bormann, reportedly because of his former membership of the Centre Party, which represented Roman Catholic voters in Weimar Germany.
The section "During the war" contains the following sentence:
"Globke submitted an application for membership to the Nazi Party, but due to his former affiliation to the Centre Party, the application was finally rejected in 1943."
Those seem to be referencing the same event, but the information doesn't match up. Could anyone say which is correct? Jdcooper (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is two versions of the article. The first one when written when the lede was too long. The second by myself from the translations, when the original article was expanded, with loads of new content. I will check the ref. Well spotted. scope_creep (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are correct, and both the applications are well referenced. He made two applications, at different time. The second application as it was requirement. scope_creep (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Party membership application 

message: Needs updated for better flow.  scope_creepTalk 11:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede

message: I do not understand User:Scope creep s revert, nor the explanation "Doesn't add anything apart from section move."
It wasnt even a section move.
I am rather specialized on bios and know what I am doing, if one checks my edit history.
I created a sorely missing section - personal life and death, which is often forgot.
I also added some clarity to the page by adding dates (the article is very mediocre, full of repetitions and poorly structured BTW)
Scope creep reverted both, then re-added the section under a non-customary heading per WP:BIO called "Retirement".
Why first revert my edit and then thank me ? -It´s a net loss to the article, lots of edits and electrons- they could have simply reverted themselves; looks like shot from the hip and after reviewing page statistics its clear to me: they are  displaying WP:own of this page; thats how you drive editors away. Doesnt sound like a Mary Wollstonecraft Award winner to me. Wuerzele (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  How goes it? I thanked you because you did good work in part, apart from the section names. Its not a shot from the hip. I'm not displaying WP:OWN either but I did write most of the article, over the last several years and is still under active development. Most of your updates were ok, but were little more than  drive by edits. You changed the sections names when they didn't need it with discussion. None of the section names have dates.  You also added the section "Personal life and death". "Personal" is not needed, as the in-context is already in the article, its his life and it already has a life and education section. It doesn't need two lifes sections. Splitting off that section was decent work and I did keep it. It needed split. That is kind of work I like. You say it is mediocre, full of repetitions and poorly structured. What would you do to change it?  scope_creepTalk 10:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if your putting a year in some sections, its usually a time period you put in, not a single year.  scope_creepTalk 10:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I'm with User:Scope creep here. Your edits, Wuerzele, while no doubt in good faith, did not make any of the information clearer. The "Personal life and death" section did not contain much about Globke's personal life, but more than just about his death: what could accurately be summarised as "Retirement". The dates in section headings also did not make the information clearer, and I've not seen this practice much around Wikipedia. As for WP:OWN, I think that is a stretch. Scope creep has indeed written most of the article, but I have been following and collaborating on this article for a while, and not only is Scope creep open to other editors' input and changes, but has indeed deliberately sought it out. Jdcooper (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jdcooper. You have been a real help, and fixed more problems than I can shake a stick at, truly. But I'm worried if there a problem with it, re:mediocre...  scope_creepTalk 23:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert of simple edit