Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Ancestry -- More recent scholarship by Leonard Sax

Please add this paragraph to the end of the Ancestry section --

More recent scholarship by Leonard Sax points out that many Jews lived in places without official sanction and demonstrated the existence of a settled Jewish community in Graz before the law formally permitted their residence, saying that "Contemporary historians have largely dismissed Frank’s claim, primarily on the grounds that there were purportedly no Jews living in Graz in 1836, when Hitler’s father Alois Schicklgruber was conceived. This consensus can be traced to a single historian, Nikolaus von Preradovich," a Nazi sympathizer, "who claimed that “not a single Jew” (kein einziger Jude) was living in Graz prior to 1856. No independent scholarship has confirmed Preradovich’s conjecture. In this paper, evidence is presented that there was in fact eine kleine, nun angesiedelte Gemeinde – “a small, now settled community” – of Jews living in Graz before 1850." And that "The hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Jewish, as claimed by Hans Frank, may fit the facts better than the alternative hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Johann Georg Hiedler or Johann Nepomuk Hiedler."

98.46.117.211 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This article is about Hitler, not about the history of the Jews in Graz, and is therefore too much detail for this particular article. However the detail that Jewish residency was illegal in the area at the time is also too much detail, so I am taking that out. — Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

As per MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:GEOLINK, please de-link "Austria-Hungary", "Berlin" and "Nazi Germany" from infobox. 193.19.255.21 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

spell being broken

I take great issue with the line "spell being broken". It is completely idiotic to try to make hitler's reign sound cool like he's some sort of Harry Potter villain. I don't care if it's changed or not, it will always keep this article idiotic.Daedrich JJ flfmjg (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That's merely what the sources are saying. We aren't going to change it because you find it to be idiotic. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's idiomatic, not idiotic. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's how some of his contemporaries responded: "Hitler's suicide was likened by contemporaries to a "spell" being broken". Demagogues often appear to 'mesmerise' those who follow them do they not? An uncritical state kept in place by a constant diet of propaganda.Pincrete (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is idiomatic. That being the case it might stylistically be better for it to expressly reference the sources using it - Fest/Speer in this case - rather than be in wikivoice. But I fail to see how it makes "Hitler's reign sound cool like he's some sort of Harry Potter villain". DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Both sources specifically use the word "spell". Fest says that in multiple contemporary accounts, "certain phrases crop up releatedly...a 'spell' had been broken, a 'phansasmagoria' shatttered." I have added some attribution for Fest and a sentence from Speer page 617. — Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"phansasmagoria" That is supposed to be phantasmagoria, a technique of using magic lanterns to project scary images, "such as skeletons, demons, and ghosts". Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. — Diannaa (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Failed Austrian Painter" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Failed Austrian Painter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11 § Failed Austrian Painter until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of "the" at the front of "historian" or other titles.

@Nick-D: @K.e.coffman: @Kierzek: @GeneralizationsAreBad: @EyeTruth: @Beyond My Ken: @Diannaa: @Peacemaker67: @Nillurcheier: -- According to editor Keeper of Albion, eliminating "the" at the front of occupations is what this editor terms a "false title" and this editor further states that "there is an article about this on Wikipedia. It’s journalese and an Americanism." Then this same editor adds in their comment "Why don’t we go through the article and remove every "superfluous" ‘the’, or other words? Why don’t we rewrite the article in broken English to use as few words as possible?" First off, having written as a professional historian (PhD), I've seen many British, Australian, New Zealanders, Canadian, and American authors alike deliberately omit "the" for many, many years now. If this is somehow grammatically incorrect, please reference this to a reputable style manual. If true, this means the vast majority of the people who've been editing this page and scores of others are wrong and this editor, Keeper of Albion, is right.

On another note, this editor's wholly unnecessary and belligerently sardonic remark accompanying their second revert: "Why don’t we rewrite the article in broken English to use as few words as possible?" does not strike me as collaborative, constructive, or productive for that matter. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of some other contributors on this technical writing matter and concerning Keeper of Albion's behavior. Obenritter (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I refer to the false title, a grammatical construct whose origin is in American newspapers of the late-19th and 20th centuries. It was first used to conserve space on physical pages. It is an Americanism and it is journalese; it sensationalises text.

"The ancient Roman poet Virgil" and "the British television series House of Cards" are perfectly ordinary English sentences. Why do you suppose that the article ‘the’ ought to be removed from them? For what purpose?

We have no need to conserve space on pages, and the English Wikipedia is not an American news website.

Your complaint of my "behaviour" is not only irrelevant on this page (and should be taken elsewhere if you think it is appropriate), but is undermined by your rather obvious use of an unnecessary false title in your first sentence. There is no need for you to make it clear that I am an editor; it seems quite reasonable that I should conclude that you wrote it out of spite. Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• I hate to tell you this, this is an American site, it defaults to US English. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to tell you this, but this article has a British English tag. Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  No it does not. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

From the very Wikipage you reference, there is also the following observation: "Some usage writers condemn false titles, and others defend it. Its use was originally American, but it has become widely accepted in some other countries." Evidently, lots of other editors see no issue with it and use this convention all over the place. You simply fall into the category of people who dislike it, whereas I find the inclusion of "the" in such instances an unnecessary and superfluous addition. Contrary to your belief that "We have no need to conserve space on pages", this is not true for large pages like the one we're editing. We do need to write for concision and reduce character count where we can.

I referenced no page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven That comment referred back to the "false title" page mentioned by Keeper of Albion and was meant for his/her/their consideration. --Obenritter (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, that's absolutely not correct. WP:ENGVAR is very clear that no national variety of English is to be preferred over any others. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but there there appears to be no standard English, as this is not an English language topic. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this article is written in UK English because of the simple fact that it was initially written in UK English and there is no good reason to change it. Other articles are written in specific varieties of English because of a strong cultural/historic link (eg Pearl Harbor, rather than Harbour, Kennedy Center, not Centre, and Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford but Broadway Theater in NY.

In this instance it's irrelevant though IMO as referring to someone as profession followed by name without 'the' is almost as common in UK as in US in my experience (eg musician Paul McCartney) and both 'burned' and 'burnt' are correct in UK, so we normally use the spelling variant that is more 'universally used', in this case 'burned'. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion, both burned and burnt are fine in British English while burned is the form in American English so, per MOS:COMMONALITY, "burned" it is. Some of your other changes, like linking Eastern Europe are against MOS:OVERLINK. As for using "the" or not, it reads fine either way but it's been without for a long while so leave it be, it's not worth edit warring over something so trivial. Valenciano (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Must agree with Obenritter and Valenciano as to this matter. Keeper of Albion your edits are unnecessary grammar changes and unneeded verbiage; frankly there is no reason to edit war over something so trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Obenritter, Valenciano and Kierzek that the changes made by Keeper of Albion are unnecessary and do not improve the article. They should be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ditto everyone else. The 'the' addition seems clunky (I'm a UK English speaker btw). I also endorse comments about overlinking. If had never heard of a 'false title' before yesterday, but "former British prime minister, Gordon Brown", seems perfectly normal UK English to my ears. We all recognise it's a description, not a title even if occupying the place where a title might otherwise be. Pincrete (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)