Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"

HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"

Editors involved in this dispute

Ykantor (talk · contribs) – filing party
Diannaa (talk · contribs)
Kierzek (talk · contribs)
Britmax (talk · contribs)
Paul Barlow (talk · contribs)
Alessandro57 (talk · contribs)
Malljaja (talk · contribs)
Nick-D (talk · contribs)
The Anome (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 55#Hitler and the holocaust

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

The current lead says:"Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and...". This sentence distance Hitler from the Holocaust ( "The final solution") although there are plenty of wp:rs that states otherwise. My proposal is to replace it with one of the following sentences:
1. Hitler authorized the main steps of the murder of the Jews , and was informed about the course (The German wikipedia)
2. Hitler, as the driving force behind genocide... (Kershaw)
3. We have seen, however, that he [Hitler] kept constantly informed of the extermination process and made ad hoc interventions in it (fleming 1987)
4. In the period 1942 to1945 we have numerous further statements by Hitler that show that he continuously intervened in "anti Jewish policy" and tried to push it forward in the sense of a radical solution (Longerich Irving trial)
5. He was deeply involved in the anti Jewish policy during the war, particularly when it reached a murderous stage (Longerich Irving trial)
6. Few historians question Hitler's decisive role in the extermination process" (Kenez 2013)

user:Diannaa and other users objected to my proposal. e.g. user:Diannaa said: Hitler made the overall policy, but other people directed and executed the genocide, under Himmler's direction which is true, but does not fully refer to my proposal that Hitler was directly involved too. e.g. Kershaw, one of the most respected Historians, says:...Hitler, as the driving force behind genocide,...,..Hitler’s role. This had often been indirect, rather than overt. It had consisted of authorizing more than directing. .... Nevertheless, there can be no doubt about it: Hitler’s role had been decisive and indispensable in the road to the ‘Final Solution’ .
I am starting this mediation process, because there are plenty of talk page arguments against my proposal, but I could not see why my proposal is supposedly wrong. So I decided to look at other Wikipedias, to see whether something is wrong with me, and found that my proposal is in agreement with the German Wikipedia (Auto translation): Hitler authorized the main steps of the murder of the Jews , and was informed about the course. The French and Spanish Wikipedias , while not as close to my proposal, are better than the English Wikipedia in that sense. Hence, there is a room for improvement of the English Wikipedia relevant sentence.
Referring to Nick D points:
1. Nick D: Ykantor has been ignoring the basic fact that the wording of the lead has been written to take into account the fact that historians have different views on what Hitler's role in the holocaust involved (Eg, whether he had a "hands on" role or not - the Functionalism versus intentionalism article discusses this) and has been building up a list of cherry picked references to support their preferred take on this argument while ignoring works that reach different conclusions.
  Reply: Suppose I have cherry picked, then where are the opposing views? We have not seen yet any historian who agree that Hitler role is limited to the current lead sentence description. i.e that Hitler role in the Holocaust is limited to his responsibility as the leader/ head of the regime and to his ideology.
  Concerning Functionalism versus intentionalism, as said, my proposal has nothing to do with this debated issue. The proposal is not related to the question whether there was a master plan or alternatively that the pressure came from below.
2. Nick D: Ykantor blatantly misrepresenting some of my posts
  Reply: I have already apologized. Besides, since I agree to every word of this Nick D's post, I could have posted all of this post, but I (accurately) quoted one sentence only for the sake of brevity.
3. Nick D: I note that the sentences proposed by Ykantor above are different to those they proposed on the article's talk page".
  reply:In order to compromise, I have proposed lot of alternative sentences, including those listed here.
4. Nick D: "the question of why this forum is being used instead of the article talk page"
  Reply: Since this talk page section was prematurely archived, how could it be continued there? Ykantor (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Paul B comments, ~~it seems that my proposal is supposedly not what most modern scholars think happened , and~~ he probably means that the modern scholars tends to be closer to the Functionalist attitude. However, here are some functionalists views, and my proposal is in agreement with these views.:
- Mommsen : p 11, "Hitler himself tended to avoid any distinct option, although he always functioned as the ideological engine to intensify the persecution" ; p 14, "he continuously pushed the Holocaust forward, and did not want to get too involved in it". Note: Hitler continuously pushed the Holocaust forward. (An excelent wording, in my opinion)
- Gotz Aly (p. 11) interpretation,according to Kershaw, is that Hitler's role, was confined to decisions as an arbiter between competing Nazi leaders whose own schemes to deal with the "Jewish question" had created insoluble problems. Hence even according to a functionalist, Hitler was making decisions and was involved in the holocaust advance.<ref name=Kershaw-hitler-final-solution-p19>{{cite web|last=Kershaw|first=Ian|title=HITLER's ROLE IN THE " FINAL SOLUTION "|url=http://www.yadvashem.org/about_HOLocaust/studies/vol34/Kershaw%20E.pdf|publisher=Yad Vashem studies|accessdate=16 January 2014|authorlink=KERSHAW IAN|page=19}}</ref> Ykantor (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know whether or not it is proper procedure to reply directly beneath your comment, but you are confusing two separate issues. Your proposal concerns the last sentence in the lede. I do not think that needs to be changed. My comment referred to the main section on the Holocaust. Your quotations actually support my point. The problem, IMO, is that you are fixated on the need to assert Hitler's guilt. But that's not in doubt. We don't need to ladle it on with a trowel. To over-personalise the causes of the event is to misrepresent it. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The relevant words are re formatted, using a strike through font. Since the lede should concisely reflect the main section, I still refer to your "not what most modern scholars think happened".

Please note, that I am not fixated on the need to support Hitler's guilt, but rather assert that the last sentence in the lede is not accurate, by under representing Hitler's role. Although the functionalists and the internationalists does not agree what was his role, There are plenty of RS (including both groups) who share a common opinion that Hitler was at least continuously involved and took decisions concerning the holocaust, which is not reflected in the lede. BTW Why won't you modify the main holocaust section?

More Functionalists views:

Christopher Browning, 1997, yad vashem, p. 2 , "Hitler, with his very deep obsessions, particularly about Jews, was a driving force behind this" ; p. 11 , "there was an incremental decision-making process in which these things were weighed and considered. Then they were brought back to Hitler"

I think the holocaust section probably should be modified. It should be about Hitler's personal role. But that's another issue. BTW, I don't think listing quotations is the best way to discuss the most appropriate wording to use. It creates a kind-of attritional atmosphere -accumulating blocks of text, which discourages useful discussion. Even your last quotation says he was "a driving force", not the driving force. Essentially, this is, IMO, a non issue. Many legitimate forms of words exist. The current form of words is fine. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add those quotes because I was challenged, at first as doing an original research and after providing some supporting quotes, as a cherry picker.

* Concerning a driving force (Browning) or "the driving force"(Kershaw), I accept Browning as a compromise , although Kershaw's version is preferred, as he is at the mid way between the intentionalists and the functionalists.

*It is rather frustrating that no RS is quoted to oppose my proposal. Ykantor (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not continue to reply, because I think we are now just generating text to no useful purpose. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Ykantor (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Ykantor has been ignoring the basic fact that the wording of the lead has been written to take into account the fact that historians have different views on what Hitler's role in the holocaust involved (Eg, whether he had a "hands on" role or not - the Functionalism versus intentionalism article discusses this) and has been building up a list of cherry picked references to support their preferred take on this argument while ignoring works that reach different conculstions. They have not convinced any of the editors who participate in the Hitler article that this is a good idea. When combined with Ykantor blatantly misrepresenting some of my posts, I can't assume good faith about their desire to ensure that the article adheres to WP:NPOV and so mediation with them seems pointless given that they're blatantly pushing one POV while seeking to disregard other views. Incidently, I note that the sentences proposed by Ykantor above are different to those they proposed on the article's talk page, which raises the question of why this forum is being used instead of the article talk page... Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that this mediation would be a good use of editor time (our only resource). Consensus among participating editors was that the article does not need to be changed, and Ykantor was the only dissenting voice. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the need for mediation for reasons that the two editors above have already outlined. Britmax (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the need for mediation for the reasons given above. Besides the discussion at length on the dispute resolution noticeboard, it was discussed most recently again on the article talk page where cited consensus was reached. Kierzek (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There is no need for mediation. Ykantor is simply refusing to drop the stick. No one disputes that Hitler was involved in the Holocaust, in that he fully sanctioned and approved it. There is no David Irving-style attempt to prove that he knew nothing about it. If anything, the section on the Holocaust is overtly intentionalist, with bald assertions that "The Holocaust... was ordered by Hitler and organised and executed by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich." It was, of course, but that implies an ex nihilo declaration to minions, which is not what most modern scholars think happened. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. YKantor has not been meaningfully engaged in any of the previous discussions. Instead he/she has written long, rambling posts sprinkled with citations selectively picked from Google books or other online searches. I have not seen any evidence that this user is interested in building a consensus around a challenging topic, and I don't think attempting mediation with him/her is a judicious use of time. Malljaja (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. As per User:Ykantor's own admission that there are "plenty of talk page arguments against my proposal." The other name for that phenomenon is, of course consensus. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

@Ykantor: If "user:Diannaa and other users objected to my proposal" why aren't the other users listed as parties here? The discussion in the talk page archive shows quite a few other editors involved. Why do you believe that this dispute may be resolved without the participation of those other users? — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (committee member)[reply]

This is a good question. I am not sure who should be listed. user:Diannaa seems to be the major editor, and deletes or modifys the article. However, if this is a hint to list the other users, I accept it of course. Should I? thanks Ykantor (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You may have to notify them, too. I'm not sure if the bot will do so after the initial listing. List them, then check a couple of their user talk pages after a day or two. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Mediation requires the agreement of the parties to proceed. For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]